Wilkins’s exam as a whole
December 20, 2006 at 12:21 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy)
I finished reading the entire exam yesterday. What I want to do here is some impressions of his theology as a whole.
There were definitely some things that were better than his Federal Vision book. He seems more willing to say that there are differences between elect and non-elect within the covenant. I wouldn’t say yet that he holds to that consistently at all points. But his exam was much better in this regard than was his article in Federal Vision.
What I still have deep problems with is his parallel soteriology. On the one hand, he claims up and down that he holds to the WCF’s decretal ordo salutis, and that his understanding of covenant does not contradict the WCF at any point. On the other hand, he has this parallel, (and needing to be) distinct covenantal soteriology. I challenge the validity of this construct. He claims that he is merely trying to make sense of what Scripture says about the blessings that the non-elect within the covenant have. However, what he doesn’t seem to acknowledge is that people who do not hold to this parallel soteriology don’t have any problems explaining any of the passages that he cites in his favor. There is the judgment of charity, e.g.
Our ordination vow states that we believe that the WCF contains THE system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures. Our vow states that we believe that our understanding of Scripture *is* that of the WCF. We don’t need to add to the WCF an entirely different construct. Are we really going to argue that the WCF has no focurs on covenant? The chapter on covenant comes well before any of the ordo salutis chapter! Are we really going to argue that the WCF is not redemptive-historical? Balderdash! Why do we need to reinvent the wheel? The WCF explains perfectly well these passages of Scripture that give Wilkins so much trouble. I am not talking about details right now. I am going to blog my way through his entire exam, so details will come. I am painting with broad brush strokes right now.
Todd said,
December 20, 2006 at 12:55 pm
“The WCF explains perfectly well these passages of Scripture that give Wilkins so much trouble.”
Balderdash. The WCF is not a commentary. Some try to treat it like that, but that’s another matter.
Todd said,
December 20, 2006 at 1:01 pm
“However, what he doesn’t seem to acknowledge is that people who do not hold to this parallel soteriology don’t have any problems explaining any of the passages that he cites in his favor.”
The comments section on your blog is a great place for people to judge just how well you and some other critics are able to “explain” the important passages. You have certainly offered explanations that satisfy you, but whether they are treating the Bible’s actual language with real intergrity is another question.
eric said,
December 20, 2006 at 1:13 pm
The Confession is not an commentary.
The foundational issue in all this is to what extent is our Confession “subject to and subordinate to the Scriptures” (BCO, preface,III) Confessional subjection and subordination clearly means that it has a limited viewpoint, which should not be expected to be the only word, or last word, on “difficult” passages of the Bible.
Wilkins is simply trying to address those issues, perspectives, or viewpoints to which our BCO & Confession acknowledge as legitimate - and beyond the intended scope and purpose of the Confession’s authors.
To treat the Confession as a comprehension answer to all of Scripture’s points is to misuse it, and is a denial of its rightful subordination to the complexities of Scripture - and even more so, arrogance against the Author.
eric
Andrew Barnes said,
December 20, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Sorry to butt in, but it is hilarious to see the responses I get from some of these people on my blog. About anything to do with women or God being ‘mother’, etc.
I mean all I am doing is combating false teachings in the church (i.e. “A Submerging Church”
I like the Church, but I want false teaching out of it! Anyway, it is just funny to see the liberalism, modernity entering into the church. I haven’t really figured out how to talk to people with these views (modernity).
David McCrory said,
December 20, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Lane, I’ve posed a few questions to DW over on his blog. In dealing specifically with baptism, he is suggesting Beisner, Waters, Phillips, etc. all deny WCF 28.6. And he himself affirms the benefits of baptism as expressed in 28.1 belong to the elect alone. But is not one of the main points of debate that FV’ers teach the benefits of baptism are temporarily conferred upon the non-elect? DW seems to reject this notion???
Todd said,
December 20, 2006 at 5:45 pm
“At any given point in time, the basic stance that dogmatics is to adopt to the doctrines and confessions of the church is, as Schilder has neatly captured it, ‘sympathetic-critical.’” Reactions?
pduggie said,
December 20, 2006 at 10:20 pm
FVers teach we can speak that the benefits are conferred, and since they are defatigable, they are apparently only temporarily conferred
greenbaggins said,
December 20, 2006 at 11:41 pm
BOQ Balderdash…with real intergrity. EOQ
I don’t mind one bit your using such language on my blog, Todd. But do you think that this language is compatible with your signing the PPT document? By the way, does this mean that you are directly attacking my view of the WCF standards, and saying that they are outside the boundaries? If so, then you are attacking well over half of the PCA as well. I am saying nothing new.
As for your claim, you show your ignorance for how proof-texts were viewed in the WCF. I believe the articles are in the Ligon Duncan edited volumes on the WCF in the 21st century. One article took great pains to prove that when the WCF divines put down a proof text, it represented all the exegesis they engaged in to get to that point. It was not a bare “out of tthin air” proof text, but represented intensive exegesis by the divines to reach that systematic point. So your comment is way off, Todd. They were engaged in exegesis from first to last in drawing up this document. That bifurcation you put between ST and BT keeps cropping up, doesn’t it? Never mind that you have zero justification for said bifurcation. In some ways, I can’t believe that you took classes from Gaffin, and now think that he’s a schizophrenic for being professor of ST *and* BT.
To Eric, how can the WCF acknowledge such viewpoints to be legitimate, and yet the said views be beyond the views of the WCF?
Yes, FV people love to quote that section of the WCF, David. Of course, they conveniently forget to emphasize “to such as that grace belongeth unto” in their haste to emphasize “the grace is really exhibited and conferred.”
Todd, what is the context of that quote? If it is from his 3-volume work on Christ, I can look it up. I need a bit more to give you an honest reaction.
Paul, it is the nature of those benefits that is at stake. Everyone agrees that non-elect members of the covenant receive some benefits. The question is which, and what is their nature.
greenbaggins said,
December 20, 2006 at 11:43 pm
By the way, Gaffin has sent quite a few emails regarding the debate page, saying that he agrees with me.
Mark said,
December 20, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Do you think the WCF&Cs teach the free offer of the Gospel (as understood by Murray/Stonehouse)?
eric said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:13 am
“To Eric, how can the WCF acknowledge such viewpoints to be legitimate, and yet the said views be beyond the views of the WCF?”
My point is that the Confession is not equal to Scripture, nor does it explain all that can be learned in Scripture. The Confession does not explain EVERY historical context, pastoral concern, nuance in Paul’s language, aesthetic structure of Mark & John’s gospel, etc, etc.
I like to think that there is always something new to learn from/in the Bible. With our Confession setting a good foundation, and systematic parameters, there is nothing wrong in appreciating how the Scripture may address a confessional doctrine from different angles or perspectives.
To say (or imply) that the scripture never approaches confessional words in its own way, appropriated to a historical contexts, is to take a lot of joy out of studying the Bible.
If one thinks the various points of the Biblical text does not exceed the principles of our Confession, he hinders his own growth in the Word; and if he is a pastor his congregation will grow stagnant. (I’ve seen it happen) There will be nothing new to learn from the Bible. I do not want to ever come to that stationary position where our Confession exhaust what the Bible is teaching - that would be so boring!
eric
Todd said,
December 21, 2006 at 8:48 am
“Balderdash.” Come on, Lane. You said it, so I said it.
“By the way, does this mean that you are directly attacking my view of the WCF standards, and saying that they are outside the boundaries?”
Nope. But I am asking whether you are saying that the WCF *is* a commentary? That would be quite a claim, but I don’t want to, ahem, put words in your mouth.
“That bifurcation you put between ST and BT keeps cropping up, doesn’t it?”
Only in your imagination, man. You’ve got to remember that over on NPPDebate, we were on the same side and quoting the same articles when this issue came up.
“In some ways, I can’t believe that you took classes from Gaffin, and now think that he’s a schizophrenic for being professor of ST *and* BT.”
I never said schizophrenic. Again, that was you.
For Schilder, I don’t have any context. I only have the article where this other author quotes his phrase. Sorry, man. Sympathetic-critical is a striking way to describe our attitude to the confessions of the church, and I’m wondering if it might be a helpful corrective to the way you describe your view of the confession’s sufficiency.
greenbaggins said,
December 21, 2006 at 9:26 am
What I mean in my statements is that the WCF is exegetical in nature. It is summarizing exegetical findings in Scripture. ST is exegetical by its very nature. And it is ridiculous to claim that the WCF is not intended to explain Scripture. The WCF is a commentary insofar as it explains Scripture. It is a commentary is summary form, much like a biblical theological ST treatment of the Bible’s teaching as a whole. The WCF was intended to explain what Scripture as a whole teaches. Again, “the system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture.” My question for you is this: are you saying that the WCF is not exegetical in its very nature?
Of course you never said the word “schizophrenic.” Your reply shows that you completely missed the point of the rhetoric. You seem to be putting a wedge between the WCF and exegesis. I challenge that wedge most sharply. That is why I use the word “commentary.”
Thanks for explaining the Schilder quotation. I would reply in this way: I was critical of the WCF before my vows. That is, I went through it with a fine-tooth comb to see if I disagreed with any of its statements. Finding no disagreements, I submitted to it. The problem with the word “sympathetic” is that it implies that our vows don’t really subject us to the government and discipline of the church as embodied in the WS. The Scriptures alone are ultimately binding. However, our vow states that we believe that the WCF is scriptural. It therefore has the same kind of binding power that a biblical sermon has. I think your view of the WS is not high enough. You will probably say that my view is too high. I am merely describing how it is that I am submitting to my brothers (the Westminster divines) in the Lord. I am not so arrogant as to claim that I am better than the brothers who have gone before.
greenbaggins said,
December 21, 2006 at 9:29 am
To Eric,
BOQ I like to think that there is always something new to learn from/in the Bible. With our Confession setting a good foundation, and systematic parameters, there is nothing wrong in appreciating how the Scripture may address a confessional doctrine from different angles or perspectives. EOQ
I can agree with this. However, this is not what the FV is doing. They are inventing a completely unrelated system of “covenantal salvation” that has little to no contact point with the confession. It cannot, otherwise they would be guilty of gross contradiction. They are still guilty of contradiction. They are not examining the same doctrines, but positing new doctrines that actually undermine the old ones.
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 9:39 am
1. Lane, DW affirmed he believed the benefits of 28.1 as expressed in 28.6 belong to the elect alone. This seems orthodox to me. If FV’ers believe this then how are their views out of line with the Confession.
2. Lane, do you believe that if a person is baptized as an infant, but for whatever reasons, doesn’t make a public profession until later in life, that the things signed and sealed at their baptism find fruition in this persons repentance and faith later on?
Todd said,
December 21, 2006 at 9:57 am
“Are you saying that the WCF is not exegetical in its very nature?”
The WCF makes no claims about the interpretation of specific passages. Even with the prooftexts attached, it is difficult to know just what the connection between the line in the WCF and the Scriptures cited is supposed to be.
I would observe that both sides of this debate use the WCF prooftexts against each other. The FV critics, for example, are often very uncomfortable with the prooftexts in the sections on baptism and seem eager to do some “explaining away.”
Please tell me which essay in the Duncan books is the good one to read about prooftexts and exegesis at the assembly. I’m definitely interested.
The “sympathetic-critical” line comes from Gaffin. (Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “The Vitality of Reformed Dogmatics,” The Vitality of Reformed Theology: Proceedings of the International Theological Congress June 20-24th 1994 Noordwijkerhout The Netherlands [eds. J. M. Batteau, J. W. Maris, K. Veling; Kampen: Kok, 1994] 16-50 at 21).
pduggie said,
December 21, 2006 at 12:19 pm
“Lane, do you believe that if a person is baptized as an infant, but for whatever reasons, doesn’t make a public profession until later in life”
I can’t think of a single infant baptsim where the child didn’t make his profession (If he made one at all) until later in life.
Chris said,
December 21, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Lane,
You write, “They are inventing a completely unrelated system of “covenantal salvation” that has little to no contact point with the confession. It cannot, otherwise they would be guilty of gross contradiction. They are still guilty of contradiction. They are not examining the same doctrines, but positing new doctrines that actually undermine the old ones.”
Overstatement, hyperbolic, to justify a weak argument. “no contact” , “gross”, etc. Your argument is weaker and weaker especially in light of the diversity of the Fathers of the Confession on much of this. The Confession was a compromise document allowing for a variety of views along these lines. Your views are myopic even to the Fathers and that is what is “gross.”
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 12:39 pm
FYI, I’m discussing the nature of baptism as it relates to the non-elect over on his blog. It seems, Wilson says, that Wilkins views the benefits of baptism belonging to the non-elect “in a different sense” than to the elect. Can anyone shed some light on what exactly this different consist of? And where is the Confessional grounds for such a distinction?
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Here’s the discussion
http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=3301&Data=3003#posts
Chris said,
December 21, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Can anyone shed some light on what exactly this different consist of? And where is the Confessional grounds for such a distinction?
Yes. the distinction is found more in the Synod of Dort where it what important to bring out that the difference btw those who persevere and those that don’t is because of a “qualitative” difference of the faith to protect verses that mention “imperishible seed” distinctions. Therefore is condemns the “only duration” as a difference. However, this is challenged recently by James Jordan in his paper that he wrote on Regeneration that you can buy through his website at Biblical Horizons. Whether JBJ is correct is another matter, but Wilkins and Wilson must maintain the “qualitative” distinction and not only “quantitative” to remain in historical interpretation of these verses. That is why, I would argue they are confessional, historical, if they continue to hold to these types of distinctions. Whether they are completely biblical is a question you will have to answer after you read JBJ on regeneration. Peace.
Todd said,
December 21, 2006 at 12:59 pm
“Wilkins views the benefits of baptism belonging to the non-elect “in a different sense” than to the elect. Can anyone shed some light on what exactly this different consist of? And where is the Confessional grounds for such a distinction?”
David, these are good questions. I think Wilkins’ point, though, is that there are no confessional grounds for such a distinction, nor are any needed. The WCF doesn’t speak to everything, and it speaks hardly at all the the “experience” of the non-elect covenant member. There’s no chapter on apostasy, not even mention of that word, unless I’ve missed it. “Common operations of the Spirit” are not spelled out.
The challenge, of course, comes from the fact that the FV guys believe that the Bible often speaks of the common operations of the Spirit with the very same terms and images (sanctifcation, union with Christ, election) that the WCF attributes only to the eternally elect.
What do you think?
Chris said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Todd,
True about “common operations” However, the Synod of Dort does condemn not having a qualitative distinction. FWIW, I disagree with Dort. But I am not trying to maintain a “confessional” argument. Those arguing for the WCF must keep it in line with Dort on that particular point. FWIW.
Todd said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Mark’s distinction over at Wilson’s mablog seems very important to me: a formulation not found in the Westminster Standards vs. a formulation ruled out by the Westminster Standards. Wilkins argues, of course, is that the formulations he is offering are not ruled out, even if they are not explicitly mentioned.
Chris said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:10 pm
I agree. The formulation he is making would be in line with the confession and tradition. Peace.
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:14 pm
“The challenge, of course, comes from the fact that the FV guys believe that the Bible often speaks of the common operations of the Spirit with the very same terms and images (sanctifcation, union with Christ, election) that the WCF attributes only to the eternally elect.
What do you think?”
~ I agree. But I fear they may be blurring the line between the various ways they are used. The TR’s may not give enough ground, the FV’s seem to take too much.
What do you think?
“Mark’s distinction over at Wilson’s mablog seems very important to me: a formulation not found in the Westminster Standards vs. a formulation ruled out by the Westminster Standards. Wilkins argues, of course, is that the formulations he is offering are not ruled out, even if they are not explicitly mentioned”
~ Like I comment there, for now I’d say that aren’t found in there. More work needs to be done in order to rule them out altogether.
I just want consent that it isn’t addressed in the WCF and therefore FV’ers should acknowledge this.
Todd said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Don’t you think Wilkins acknowledges this?
“And so on. These chapters do not address the spiritual experience of those who are not elect (in the WCF 3 sense). Indeed, the Standards have very little to say about the spiritual experience of the non-elect who are members of the visible church. WCF 10.4 is perhaps the clearest and fullest statement. This section refers to those who are members of the church but who apostatize (those who received the “common operations of the Spirit”). The Confession makes clear that these who fall away “never truly come to Christ.””
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:25 pm
FV’ers are using strict systematic definitions to describe much broader (and Biblical) applications of those very same words. TR’s believe FV’s are using Confessional terms much broader yet with the same strict systematic way (with the same definitions) as the Confession does.
In a sense, you can use the word “elect” both Confessionally, and “outside” the strict doctrinal systematic use of the Confession and remain both Biblical and orthodox.
Todd said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:27 pm
“But I fear they may be blurring the line between the various ways they are used. The TR’s may not give enough ground, the FV’s seem to take too much.”
Help me out here, David. The various ways that certain terms and images (sanctification, union with Christ, election) are used where? In the Scripture?
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:27 pm
I’m sorry, My first sentence should read,
“Fv’ers are using traditionally strict, systematic words to describe a much broader (and Biblical) application to those very same words.”
Chris said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:29 pm
“In a sense, you can use the word “elect” both Confessionally, and “outside” the strict doctrinal systematic use of the Confession and remain both Biblical and orthodox”
That is what the FV is doing or claiming to do.
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Todd,
Yes. In Scripture. If we concede that Scripture uses and defines a word like “elect” in two senses, we must be careful to dileniate which way we’re using it. The FV’ers seem to want to make use of a non-decretal sense yet often appear to give it salvific connotations. THe TR’s often don’t want to concede it is used in a non-elect decretal sense.
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Chris, I know. Yet the fear of the TR’s is that the FV’s are importing Confessional strict meaning to the use which is outside that scope.
Todd said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:38 pm
David, we’re probably at the point where we have to talk about specific passages and specific language.
Personally, I’m still undecided about the election language in Ephesians 1. It is certainly addressed to the whole church without distinction, but does this really imply that every church member is “chosen” in some covenantal sense, or is this simply “judgment of charity” and using the image in a more “Calvinistic” way? Great questions.
Much more clear, in my opinion, is the way the NT uses union with Christ language in connection with both baptism and apostasy.
Todd said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:46 pm
The dangerous next step, of course, is to ask whether (a certain kind of) union with Christ can exist without bringing (a certain kind of) all the other benefits of that union. Dangerous!
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 1:52 pm
I agree with this quote:
“Calvin never preached to console his flock into false assurance of salvation. Many scholars minimize Calvin’s emphasis on the need for a subjective, experiential realization of faith and election by referring to Calvin’s practice of approaching his congregation as saved hearers. They misunderstand.
Though Calvin practiced what he called “a judgment of charity” (i.e. , addressing as saved those church members who maintain a commendable, external lifestyle), he also frequently asserted that only a minority receive the preached Word with saving faith. He says: “For though all, without execption, to whom God’s Word is preached are taught, yet scarce one in ten so much as tastes it; yea, scarce one in a hundred profits to the extent of being enabled, thereby, to proceed in a right course to the end.”"
~ from “Puritan Reformed Spirituality” by Joel R. Beeke, Reformation Heritage Books, 2004; pg. 44-45.
Todd said,
December 21, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Yow! One in a hundred? David, is that your suspicion of your own local church?
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 2:41 pm
We don’t have a hundred people =-). But no. I believe, for the first time in a long time, I am among a very pure church. But in the broader evangelical community? One in an hundred is probably being very gracious.
Todd said,
December 21, 2006 at 2:58 pm
I wonder what the context of the Calvin quotation is. Did he believe a one-in-a-hundred ratio existed among his own congregation in Geneva?
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 3:04 pm
I dunno. I just posted this over at Mablog and wanted to get everyones thought on it here,
“I believe the Confession to be a very intensive document. It is intended to define precise theological categories. And it has it’s place within the Church. But it is not an extensive document. Meaning the Confession is not intended to cover every possible use of the terms it contains. There are, concievably, both orthodox and unorthdox usages for specific theological terms used in the Confession. In other words, there are usages for terms that remain Biblical, yet not within the perview of the Confession.”
Everyone agree or disagree?
Todd said,
December 21, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Lane won’t like that one, I think.
“On the one hand, he claims up and down that he holds to the WCF’s decretal ordo salutis, and that his understanding of covenant does not contradict the WCF at any point. On the other hand, he has this parallel, (and needing to be) distinct covenantal soteriology. I challenge the validity of this construct.”
“Our ordination vow states that we believe that the WCF contains THE system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures. Our vow states that we believe that our understanding of Scripture *is* that of the WCF. We don’t need to add to the WCF an entirely different construct.”
“Are we really going to argue that the WCF is not redemptive-historical? Balderdash! Why do we need to reinvent the wheel? The WCF explains perfectly well these passages of Scripture that give Wilkins so much trouble.”
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Well, I’m no FV’er but I can certainly see where the Bible can use a word in a way different, not contrary to, the Confession. This in no way impedes the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures or the WCF. This is particually true if you understand the Confessions own limitations as a summary of Christian theology.
Todd said,
December 21, 2006 at 3:30 pm
You sound like an FVer to me, man. No offense.
David McCrory said,
December 21, 2006 at 3:39 pm
No, Todd. I am a humble and mostly uneducated man who places all human wisdom and knowledge under the authority of the God’s Word. The conclusions I come to are motivated out of a desire to remain faithful to God’s infallible, inspired Word. Fortunately, I find myself not offically beholden to the Confession and therefore may have more liberty to speak about it than men whose very lively-hoods depend upon adherence to it. This in no way impunges the character of the WCF which is in my humble estimation the most accurate and concise summary of Christian doctrine ever penned by unispired men.
greenbaggins said,
December 22, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Todd I agree with David in principle on the use of terms. The quotations you adduce to argue that I wouldn’t like David’s formulations serve a different purpose. It is not so much that *terms* are used differently that is the problem, though that is sometimes a critical issue, and though terminological precision is much to be desired (and is often lacking in FV proponents). It is rather that there is an entirely different salvific construct being erected. As much as Wilkins claims to be talking about the benefits that non-elect covenant members possess, what he winds up doing is going far beyond that to constructing “covenantal” everything. I am the last one to demote “covenant” to something useless or ridiculous, by the way.
Todd said,
December 22, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Lane, in your view, does membership in the visible church include/imply any kind of union with Christ?
David McCrory said,
December 22, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Lane, Wilkins seems to reject the notion that salvific benefits are applied to non-elect members and that there are other temporal blessings that come to an unregenrate church members simply by virture of belonging to the covenant people of God. Could it not be rightly said (though I would not endorse it) that unregenrate non-elect members of the visible church are, in a sense “delivered” or “saved” from an otherwise heathen and pagan lifestyle? And that the influence of being apart of Christ’s Church helps to discourage sinful actions through accountability, and a sense of “religious affections”?
greenbaggins said,
December 22, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Well, that is the question, isn’t it? The union with Christ that believers experience is salvific. In no sense can unbelievers be savingly united to Christ. Unbelievers are dead. They can produce no fruit. They are “suckers” on the vine, not fruit-bearing branches. They want all the privileges without any of the responsibility. They can only outwardly be united to Christ. There is no seed of true faith within them. They have a false faith. After 3.2.11 in Calvin’s Institutes, which Wilkins quotes, there is a section dealing with true and false faith. Sometimes it looks like they have true faith. But it is a vain confidence in the flesh. In no sense are they regenerated, justified, sanctified, or any of the rest of the ordo salutis. Using these terms “covenantally” confuses the issue.
greenbaggins said,
December 22, 2006 at 3:10 pm
I could agree with the latter part of your statement, David. That is to say that unregenerate members of the church do experience many benefits, none of them savingin the ordo salutis sense of the term. Wilkins will say on the one hand, that only the elect receive true saving benefits. But then he will waffle in definitions for saving benefits. This is where my problem with him lies, not in the many statements saying that he upholds the confession. The question is one of the consistency of the system as a whole, not of taking one statement of his (saying that he upholds the confession) as the truth. Every heretic claims that he upholds the truth. But he is not the one to judge. His brothers in Christ are the ones to judge. And not just on a Presbytery level: it must be on the denominational level, ultimately. This last sentence is why I am really tired of hearing “Wilkins was exonerated on the Presbytery level: that should be good enough for everyone.” Well, it isn’t. Ultimately, the SJC determines cases like this, especially since at least one presbytery does not agree with LAP’s exoneration of him. That needs to be settled in the SJC.
Furthermore, Wilkins’s exam was made public, making it fair game for criticism. I am saying this just in case anyone decides to say that I shouldn’t be doing this on a blog.
David McCrory said,
December 22, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Is it possible that your biased in your opinion of Wilkins and therefore aren’t taking his statements at face value? He seems, at least in this exam, very contrite, yet frustrated at the attacks rather than debate/dialouge he feels should be taking place. If a minster in good standing says he beleives something, should he not be given the benefit of the doubt? And to not give him this doesn’t it reflect a lack of charity on the part of his examiners?
I am still looking for someone on the TR side to show me plainly and clearly where something he has said and currently stands behind is out-and-out heresy. Can you please give me a quote demonstrating his heresy?
Todd said,
December 22, 2006 at 4:31 pm
“They can only outwardly be united to Christ.”
OK. Two questions.
1. What passages of Scripture teach this?
2. What benefits flow from this outward union?
John said,
December 22, 2006 at 5:04 pm
And if I can add to what Todd said: What does it mean to be “outwardly united to Christ”?
David McCrory said,
December 22, 2006 at 5:20 pm
If I can speak to John’s question to Lane: To be outwardly united to Christ is to appear, to our eyes, to be united to Him through various things i.e., baptism, church membership, communion, active obedience and so forth (external evidences). But what is suggested in saying we are “outwardly united” to Christ is to imply we are not inwardly united. By inwardly united is meant being granted saving faith in order to embrace salvific union with Chirst by receiving real benefit such as regeneration, justification, etc. This finds Scriptural support in the fact Christ says there will have been many in the last day who will have done works (outwardly) for Him ,yet He never truly knew (inwardly) knew them.
Lane Keister said,
December 22, 2006 at 5:27 pm
To David, Wilkins is anything but contrite. Observe his statements regarding an entire presbytery: “The Memorial exhibits a catastrophic misunderstanding of the position I am seeking to set forth and asserts that I hold positions which I explicitly deny…The Memorial demonstrates an unwillingness to seek to understand the perspective which governs the position I’m attempting to set forth. I view the Memorial as uncharitable as it is unreasonable. Thus, I am forced to say that the charges leveled by the memorial are false, ill-considered, and misplaced.” This does not sound contrite at all, in my opinion.
And, to briefly answer Wilkins, if the Memorial is correct in its understanding, then it is doing the charitable thing. If the Memorial is incorrect, they are still doing the charitable thing by asking the SJC to adjudicate and come to the truth. It matters not whether the Memorial is correct or not, they are still doing the charitable thing. Much confusion has arisen over this teaching. Surely we can say that the purpose of the Memorial is to clarify whether or not Wilkins’s teaching is in or out of accord with the WCF. That is what they wish the SJC to adjudicate. Therefore Wilkins is completely off-base when he calls an entire presbytery uncharitable and unreasonable. He seems to think that nothing in his entire teaching should ever give even a hint of problem that other people might pick up on and say “Hey, wait a minute.” If the South Carolina Presbytery is really so off-base, then Wilkins ought to bring charges against the presbytery to the SJC. That is the proper course of action. This is hardly contrite, David.
Regarding the benefit of the doubt, there are published writings of Wilkins. This is the basis of the charges by the South Carolina Presbytery. If it is true that every heretic has claimed to be Scriptural, and it is the very orthodoxy of Wilkins that is in question, then the evidence of written documentation should be allowed its due weight. I’m sure that his answers to this exam will be given their due weight in court. What about this is *not* giving Wilkins every chance to defend himself and show that he is confessional? But simply saying that one is confessional, and actually being confessional are two different things. That is a pure and simple fact that I would admonish all FV er’s to remember. If someone were to come along and charge me with heresy in the PCA, they would have the full written documentation of my blog. I would use that, and so would the prosecution. It is hardly the case in all of this, that Wilkins is not being given a chance to defend himself. There is the exam responses, as well as his day in court. Will FV er’s be willing to pray this entire prayer? : “Lord, if Wilkins is innocent, then make it clear in the SJC that this is all misunderstanding; if Wilkins is guilty, then judge him.” False teachers are warned against many times in Scripture. The proper course is to judge (in the SJC) any who are thought to be so, to see if they are heretical. If they are, then they need to be disciplined (being given every chance to recant/repent). This is love.
To Todd, I have already given passages that support an inner/outer distinction within the church. Acts 2:41, Galatians 2:4, 1 John 2:19, Romans 2:28-29, Romans 9:6, John 10:26-27. Passages such as “circumcize your hearts, and not your foreskin” plainly indicate that many are outwardly joined to the body of Christ, but have not the substance. Do we not say that everyone needs inward regeneration to be truly united to Christ by faith? See also WCF 26.1 and LC 65-66.
What are the benefits? They sit under the preaching of the Word, and the preaching of the Sacraments. They have the fellowship of believers. Their lawless lives are restrained. They are constantly being reminded of Christ. These are benefits that all can receive, regardless of whether they believe or not. Of course, such unbelievers cannot make proper use of such benefits, since that requires true faith.
Lane Keister said,
December 22, 2006 at 5:28 pm
David, I would agree with comment 53.
Lane Keister said,
December 22, 2006 at 5:43 pm
To David, the argument about pages 57-61 on Federal Vision shows that Wilkins claims way too much for baptism. On page 8 of his exam, he says this: “The ‘invisible Church’ is not a parallel entity that exists above or beyond the visible church but rather is the ‘whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof;’ - in other words, the invisible Church does not yet exist though it is surely foreordained by God and will surely and certainly exist at the last day.” The WCF says quite definitively that the invisible church exists now. Of course, no one is saying that the invisible church is a “parallel entity.” Rather (those watchwords of Reformed orthodoxy!) the visible church and the invisible church are inseparable, yet distinct. Maybe better, overlapping. But to say that the invisible church will only exist in the future is heretical. Murray, by the way, would not pass a presbytery examination if I were on the committee. The WCF says “the catholic or universal Church which is invisible, consist of the whole number of the elect.” Note that present tense “consists of.” In fact, the WCF makes explicit that there has always been an invisible church “that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one.” This is WCF 25.1, by the way. The inseparableness of the two aspects is noted in section 4, where it simply says “this catholic church.” Again, as I said before, to deny the present aspect of the invisible church is to say that the Reformation was wrong. The only way the Reformation could defend themselves against the RCC question of “Where was your church for the last 15 centuries?” was to argue a position on the current status of the invisible church. The Reformed church was invisible for a great deal of the Medieval period.
David McCrory said,
December 22, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Ok. Thanks Lane for the reference. I agree Wilkins is wrong to suggest the invisible church does not yet exist. In a metaphysical sense, God is done “creating” and all things already exist. As a matter of fact, to say it consist of those that “have been” (past tense) elect, and then turn around and say it is wholly furturistic is nonsensical.
I’d like to study this particular aspect of his thinking more and it’s implications. I know a man can be grossly wrong in his thinking and still remain within the pale of orthodoxy, but may not remian within the bounds of the WCF. I don’t believe this makes him a heretic per se, just not fit to serve as a minister in a reformed church.
greenbaggins said,
December 22, 2006 at 6:02 pm
You have touched on a distinction that is very important: there are heretics who are eternally damned, and there are heretics who simply are not within the confessional bounds of orthodoxy. The word “heretic” simply means someone who teaches something different than the truth. So, in saying that Wilkins is a heretic, what I am saying is that he is not within confessional bounds. Whether he is going to hell or not is not for me to say.
Todd said,
December 22, 2006 at 7:57 pm
“But to say that the invisible church will only exist in the future is heretical.”
No one says this.
Todd said,
December 22, 2006 at 8:03 pm
What I’m hoping for from you, Lane, is a passage or two that uses union with Christ language/imagery that you are comfortable applying to the visible church and not just to the eternally elect. Any?
greenbaggins said,
December 22, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Wilkins says that the invisible church does not yet exist. That is a direct quote. He says, “in other words, the invisible church does not yet exist though it is surely foreordained by God and wil surely and certainly exist at the last day (but then of course, it will exist as a very visible body).” Then later, he even seems to deny the invisible church as a biblical concept, when he says, “It is important for us to recognize the fact of the mixed nature of the Church in history, but this does not mean that there is such a thing as an ‘invisible Church’ of which you must become a member. The Bible speaks of only one Church which is the body and bride of Christ…” The problems of this formulation are evident when one considers the language of WCF 25.1. The invisible church exists now.
In a somewhat cursory glance of passages having to do with “in Christ,” I could not find any passages having to do with the visible church. “In Christ,” especially in Paul, is a particular expression for salvation. You already know my views on John 15.
Todd said,
December 22, 2006 at 9:39 pm
“In a somewhat cursory glance of passages having to do with “in Christ,” I could not find any passages having to do with the visible church.”
Remarkable. Tell me which passages in Paul do describe the visible church, in your view.
Todd said,
December 22, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Hey, I should say that I was wrong in #59 above. You were quoting accurately, and you proved your point. Well done.
Lane, do you believe that we must “become a member” of the invisible church?
greenbaggins said,
December 23, 2006 at 11:37 am
In reply to 63, I absolutely believe that one must come to faith, by God’s grace and gift. That makes one a member of the invisible church.
In reply to 62, there is the parable of the dragnet in Matthew 13:47-50. I know that this is not Paul, but it certainly has a bearing on the discussion. That is a very, very clear picture of the visible church as differentiated. See especially “the kingdom of heaven is like” in verse 47. I’m sure that there are many passages in Paul that refer to the church as mixed. The chapter in 1 Corinthians about the man caught in sin surely describes how the visible church is to work. Surely, Paul’s warnings are to the visible church, which is mixed. The warnings (from a human perspective) serve to preach to the unconverted within the church, as well as being the safeguard for the elect to persevere.
Todd said,
December 23, 2006 at 12:32 pm
“I absolutely believe that one must come to faith, by God’s grace and gift. That makes one a member of the invisible church.”
Not if the definition of the WCF is to be followed, man.
“The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof;”
The WCF says that all the elect are already members of the invisible church, even before faith, even before birth. Right?
“Surely, Paul’s warnings are to the visible church, which is mixed.”
But Paul’s warnings presuppose some kind of union with Christ.
Romans 11:
“They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”
greenbaggins said,
December 23, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Todd, you are nitpicking here. What I mean is that there is a transition from wrath to grace in a Christian’s life. Many have absolutely nothing to do with the church before they are converted. How can they already be a member of the invisible church? You are forgetting the importance of the word “gathered.” Yes, they are elect from before the foundation of the world. But until they are “gathered,” they are not part of the invisible church. So the WCF is not saying that the elect are already members of the invisible church even before they have faith. Here we are straining at the limits of human knowledge.
Romans 11 does not mention union per se. Of course, the branches are part of the vine, except that they are dead if they are apostate. In which case, they do not belong to the vine. It is dead wood. We must not press the language of the metaphor beyond what it will stand. If they were broken off, it is because they did not belong to the vine. God’s grace is evident in that the supposed dead branches can be vivified such that they are alive and regraftable.
Todd said,
December 23, 2006 at 1:00 pm
“Many have absolutely nothing to do with the church before they are converted. How can they already be a member of the invisible church?”
Ask the divines. Maybe it’s time to take an exception. Or at least a quibble.
“The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, *consists* of the *whole number of the elect,* that have been, are, *or shall be gathered* into one, under Christ the Head thereof;”
“Of course, the branches are part of the vine, except that they are dead if they are apostate.”
You’ve introduced an idea here that isn’t in the text. There is no mention of dead branches.
“In which case, they do not belong to the vine.”
Olive tree. Right?
“We must not press the language of the metaphor beyond what it will stand.”
And we must not introduce new images (dead branches) into a biblical metaphor so that it will fit more easily into our interpretation of a theological system.
“If they were broken off, it is because they did not belong to the vine.”
Again, Romans 11 doesn’t say this. Instead, it says, “They were broken off because of their unbelief.”
Todd said,
December 23, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Lane, the outward union with Christ that even non-elect members of the visible church enjoys–is it the work of the Holy Spirit?
greenbaggins said,
December 23, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Olive tree, right. My bad.
Unbelieving branches are dead. Being dead in transgressions and sins means being dead in unbelief via Ephesians 2. This is hardly a stretch, Todd. Why would branches be cut off? Two reasons: 1. They are dead; 2. They are not bearing fruit (and hence are as good as dead, via the vine imagery in Isaiah 5).
You didn’t answer my argument about the word “gathered.” The elect are gathered. Until they are gathered, they are the opposite of gathered, which is “scattered.” In order to be part of the invisible church, they have to be gathered.
greenbaggins said,
December 23, 2006 at 1:10 pm
With regard to comment 68, I would say “yes,” it is part of the common operations of the Spirit about which the WCF speaks.
Todd said,
December 23, 2006 at 1:19 pm
“In order to be part of the invisible church, they have to be gathered.”
Sorry, man. I know you didn’t want this day to come, but you are out of accord with this line in the confession.
“Unbelieving branches are dead.”
The Bible just doesn’t say this.
“With regard to comment 68, I would say “yes,” it is part of the common operations of the Spirit about which the WCF speaks.”
So even non-elect members of the church enjoy a Spirit-wrought union with Christ?
greenbaggins said,
December 23, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Todd, this is bare assertion. Are you going to answer my claim about the word “gathered” or aren’t you? Witness the difference between these two “versions” of the particular line: 1. The catholic or universal Church which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be. 2. The catholic or universal Church which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one.
Now, what is important to note here is that the verbs “have been,” “are,” and “shall be” are (*all three*) helping verbs to the main verb “gathered.” The pastness, presentness, and futureness of the elect is here defined in terms of being gathered. We could say it this way: “The catholic or universal Church which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been gathered, are gathered, or shall be gathered into one.” Why is it not occurring to you that it is absurd to talk of being a member of the church which one hates, though being elect? This interpretation is confirmed by the last phrase of section 2, which indicates that there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside the visible church. One cannot be a part of the invisible church without being a part of the visible church. That would be (in Paul’s language) like an eye deciding that it really needs to exist all by itself, and that it doesn’t need the rest of the members of the body. But an eye on a shelf *doesn’t see.*
So unbelievers are spiritually alive? Where exactly does the Bible say that?
Your last statement would have to be very heavily qualified. Right now, it is dancing very near to the edge of the precipice. I would not stress such formulations.
Todd said,
December 23, 2006 at 2:08 pm
“So unbelievers are spiritually alive? Where exactly does the Bible say that?”
Of course the Bible doesn’t say this. But it also doesn’t say what you said: “Unbelieving branches are dead.”
“Why is it not occurring to you that it is absurd to talk of being a member of the church which one hates, though being elect?”
Again, your argument is with the confession. The invisible church consists of the whole number of the elect. Period. It doesn’t grow. All your careful exposition of the implcations of the word “gathered” doesn’t change anything.
Even before they are gathered, they are part of the “whole number of the elect.” Do you deny it?
And that’s the equation the confession makes: “The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, *consists* [present tense!] of the whole number of the elect.” The invisible church doesn’t grow. How can it? It consists of the whole number of the elect. That number doesn’t grow.
Ironically, you are finally feeling some of what bothers guys like Wilkins and Wilson about the way the confession speaks so clearly here.
“Your last statement would have to be very heavily qualified. Right now, it is dancing very near to the edge of the precipice. I would not stress such formulations.”
It was, of course, not a statement, but a question about the implications of your own views. Good and necessary consequence, etc.
greenbaggins said,
December 23, 2006 at 2:28 pm
About the invisible church. The number doesn’t grow in God’s eternity. From God’s perspective the church never grows. However, there is an aspect of the invisible church that is human: namely, it is humans who are part of it! In time, the church does grow. From a human perspective, when a person comes to faith, they *join* the invisible church even if, in God’s mind, they always were elect. The implication of your position is that there no transition from wrath to grace in the history of a person converting to Christianity. If the only transition is from outside the visible church into the visible church, then there is no time-point when faith joins the believer inseparably and ordo salutis-wise to the invisible church. In short, you are truncating the human nature of the invisible church, and you are completely ignoring the word “gathered.”
David McCrory said,
December 23, 2006 at 2:59 pm
A.A. Hodge on WCF XXV.1
“That this entire body (invisible church, DM) in its ideal completeness, not one true member wanting, not one false member marring its symmerty, has been constantly present to the mind of God from eternity, must be believed by all persons who acknowledge with or both the divine foreknowledge and foreordination.”
I believe we have to be willing to say that in some sense, the invisible church exist prior to being gathered in. This is because the things God decrees must needs come to pass. Much in the same way Christ atonement is sufficent for those not yet born at it’s accomplishment, it is very real, truly exists and they are already justified through His work. It is just that this justification has not been applied to them.
greenbaggins said,
December 23, 2006 at 3:06 pm
David, I agree completely.
Todd said,
December 23, 2006 at 6:36 pm
“The implication of your position is that there no transition from wrath to grace in the history of a person converting to Christianity. If the only transition is from outside the visible church into the visible church, then there is no time-point when faith joins the believer inseparably and ordo salutis-wise to the invisible church.”
Again, your issues are with the WCF, not with me. It defines the invisible church in a way which makes its growth in history impossible. I don’t have a problem with this–not even a quibble. But if you do…
“In short, you are truncating the human nature of the invisible church, and you are completely ignoring the word “gathered.””
Nah. You’re ignoring the present tense of the verb “consists” and the presence of the word “whole.”
David writes: “I believe we have to be willing to say that in some sense, the invisible church exist prior to being gathered in.”
And this, of course, is the perspective from which the WCF is making its definition, even if Lane thinks it to be absurd.