The report ends with nine declarations. Here they are with my responses at this point in time.

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

• The parenthetical remark is public notice is that this declaration threatens no one except those with the wrong friends.
• The bi-covenantal structure of Scripture? Don’t they mean of theology? What?
• Do they mean “rejects the bi-covenantal structure of the Westminster Confession and Catechism”? I don’t have any exceptions to what they say about the two covenants, so I can agree with that.
• But that doesn’t mean I can sign the declaration. This declaration does not ask a person if he believes a doctrine but if he believes that anyone who might not affirm the doctrine can be fit for ministry in the PCA. And, to say the least, the report has failed to prove that such people are unfit. I’d need to see better argumentation and better examples of this rejection. For example, in a published essay on Reformed Theology TE Dr. Wilson Benton attacked the bi-covenantalism of Reformed Theology in no uncertain terms. Truthfully, while I thought he may had had some points, overall I didn’t agree with him and thought his claims were rather breath-taking. But I didn’t think he was unfit to be a minister in the PCA.

2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

• If the report means by “elect” chosen for eternal life, then well and good. But the scare quotes are confusing and I cannot tell what this declaration is declaring.

3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

• If this is an attempt to demand the “imputation of the active obedience of Christ,” this the declaration is in error. It is not contrary to the Westminster Standards to fail to affirm IAO. I have no problem affirming IAO, provided it is not done in such a way as to claim that the blood of Jesus is insufficient for sins of omission. But my ordination vows forbid me to question the orthodoxy of other Reformed ministers on this basis.
• Otherwise, I heartily embrace the declaration.

4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

• How many merits does Christ have? If I affirm that Christ’s singular merit, as in his worthiness, is imputed to his people, am I contrary to Westminster?
• What if I ask what is meant by merit and affirm that the answer is imputed to Christ’s people. Is merit some sort of irreducible word that must never change? If so, then it is meaningless and it is nonsense to affirm it.
• The Westminster standards use the word merit for what Jesus did, but they never make it a “theological” term, never define it in a catechism question or use it as a chapter head.

5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

• Obviously, any view that makes Paul redundant when he uses the term logizomai is defective, but no one has ever meant anything so crude. Imputaton is the legal aspect of being united to Christ.
• We are now legislating what we discuss under what doctrinal headings. Utter tyranny. There is no justification for this sort of shallow, meaningless, grammar test anywhere in the Westminster Standards.
• In fact, justification by faith alone, in the standards is simply shorthand for union with Christ by faith alone. That is the Confessional position; it is the Biblical position, and it is my own position. If this be treason, make the most of it.

6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

• The elect and they only receive saving benefits.
• Baptism does effect a covenantal unioin, no scare quotes needed.
• There is undoubtedly some sort of covenantal relation preceding baptism, but baptism is still an objective transition.
• This declaration invents enemies who do not exist.
• I have no idea if the above constitutes an affirmation or denial of the declaration, but have already sacrificed too much of my life thinking about it.

7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

• Tautologically true. Effectual union, like effectual calling, only takes place in the case of those chosen for everlasting life.

8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

• Only the elect receive saving benefits.

9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

• The final verdict of justification, wherein God will openly acknowledge and acquit us, will be based on our works as evidence of a living faith that has united us to Christ so that the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone is the only ground of our righteousness in His sight.

So those are my thoughts on the nine declarations at this point.

• 30 Reasons Why It Would be Unwise for the PCA General Assembly to Adopt the Federal Vision Study Report and Its Recommendations (PDF, HTML).