Wilkins’s exam, part 2
December 22, 2006 at 6:47 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy, NT-Ephesians)
Here we come to a rather important section of the exam, part I.3. Wilkins claims that his teaching does not contradict the WCF. He states that his concern is “with how we read the texts of Scripture which appear to contradict some of the statements and positions set forth in the Confession and Catechisms. I do not believe the scriptural texts do contradict the standards in fact but they are simply using terminology in a broader way than it is defined by our Confessional standards. This means that we must consider carefully the meaning of these terms in the particular contexts in which they are used. That has been my concern in regard to the so-called ‘Federal vision’ issues.” After stating that he firmly holds to the WCF he states this “This is probably, however, a good place to note the perspective from which the doctrines of salvation and the application of Christ’s redemption are discussed in the Westminster standards.” To use a favourite word of his, I would quibble with the phrase “the perspective from which.” As is well known, the FV sees the WCF as one way of looking at Scripture, but not the only valid way. They would also claim that their views are not in conflict with the WCF. However, is this true?
The question can be more concisely put this way: should we have a different perspective than the WCF, if we have taken an oath vowing to uphold it? We say in our vows that the WCF contains the system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture. We are saying by that is that there is no other valid way to interpret the Scriptures. What we are doing then, having examined the WCF before our ordination vows, is to bind ourselves to the WCF as the way in which we read Scripture. If we feel that this is a straight jacket, then we should not take such a vow.
To go on, Wilkins expounds the WCF in its discussion of the ordo salutis. Ordo salutis, by the way, refers to the way in which salvation comes to a person. His point in enumerating this is to note that the WCF really doesn’t address the position or status of non-elect members of the covenant. He puts it this way: “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.” This he says in order to justify his position on how Paul, for instance, can say of the entire church that they are elect. Here is the important paragraph: “Does Paul mean (in Col 1, LK) that each and every member of this congregation is ‘elect’ in the WC sense? I don’t think so, but that leaves the question of how esxactly he does understand them to be ‘elect of God, holy and beloved.’ And, though I am quite certain that only the elect will finally be redeemed through the blood of Jesus and only the elect will receive the forgiveness of sins (and I’m sure Paul would agree) how can Paul state that this reality was true of the members of the church in Colossae? These are the sorts of questions I’m seeking to address and to do so in a way that does no harm in the least to God’s absolute, sovereign predestination.” His conclusion is this: “If we think that calling members of the visible church citizens of the kingdom, sons in the family, and members of the house of God requires us to reject what the Confession says about ‘the elect’ in chapters 10-18, we are pitting the Confession against itself.”
The problem with this is that he has completely forgotten the judgment of charity argument. It is a very simple explanation: Paul assumes (being human, of course) that his readers are elect. He is not saying that they actually are elect. If he were, then he would be able to read hearts, which is something no one could claim. That Paul is speaking of real salvation in Ephesians 2, there can be no doubt, since he says “in one Spirit” in verse 18. Verse 16 also supports this position: “and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.” The reconciliation is that effected from Christ’s redemption on the cross. The first part of the chapter amply demonstrates that true faith and salvation (especially verses 4-7) are in view. Verse 6 demonstrates that this salvation is not losable: “seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” We are already seated in heaven with Jesus in Jesus. That is, we will never be more saved than we are right now. But this has its concomitant truth: we cannot lose session in the heavenly places any more than Christ could lose it. The ordo salutis as accomplished by the historia salutis is in view. Verse 11 firmly connects the whole of the rest of the chapter with the first part of the chapter with its “therefore.” Therefore, since Paul plainly urges here a complete and utter salvation, there can be no question of “covenantal-but-losable” blessings. Since they cannot be lost, Wilkins’s interpretation of this passage is off. The only way that Paul could speak to the church of blessings that they have irrevocably, is to issue to them the judgment of charity.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
Todd said,
December 22, 2006 at 8:21 pm
“We say in our vows that the WCF contains the system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture. We are saying by that is that there is no other valid way to interpret the Scriptures.”
Lane, I suspect that you believe a whole load of things about the arrival of the kingdom of God through the ministry of Christ that the WCF doesn’t address at all. It’s a whole “parallel structure” of eschatology that exists side by side with the things that the WCF does emphasize.
greenbaggins said,
December 22, 2006 at 9:28 pm
You think that LC 191 doesn’t address these things?
Todd said,
December 22, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Barely. Again, I suspect that you believe tons of things about the way the kingdom arrived through the ministry of Christ that the WCF simply doesn’t address.
Another example: Do you believe that Jesus’ resurrection was his justification?
Todd said,
December 22, 2006 at 9:55 pm
“That Paul is speaking of real salvation in Ephesians 2, there can be no doubt, since he says “in one Spirit” in verse 18.”
But the WCF puts prooftexts from this very section of Ephesians into its exposition of the visible church, “the house and family of God.” Do you disagree with its use of these prooftexts?
David Gadbois said,
December 23, 2006 at 12:13 am
The synthesis here is simple - if Ephesians is indeed talking about the elect (invisible church) and saying that they belong to the “house and family of God” (visible church, per WCF’s definition), then that means nothing more than that the invisible church is also a part of the visible church.
David McCrory said,
December 23, 2006 at 12:32 am
Lane you say:
“should we have a different perspective than the WCF, if we have taken an oath vowing to uphold it? We say in our vows that the WCF contains the system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture. We are saying by that is that there is no other valid way to interpret the Scriptures.”
~ Do you not think it better to view the Confession as a framework (an outline) defining orthodoxy and the system of doctrine in the reformed church, rather than implying it is entirely exhaustive regarding what we are to believe? If this were true there would be no need for any other commentary, books or teaching regarding theological matters. Yet this is simply not the case. Though I think it is important to interpret Scripture in accord with the Confession, to suggest we cannot interpret outside of the Confession is not necessarily going against it.
For example, there is not a chapter on how a husband should treat his wife. An though I believe we can draw much about the matter from the WC, it simply isn’t directly treated there. So I would suggest, in a case like this, we need to interpret and apply Scripture to this matter, and yet do to it in such a way as to not compromise the “system of doctrine” laid out for us in the WC. This is not having a different perspective than the Confession, but it is dealing with an issue “outside” of it’s immediate perview. Would you agree?
Could it not be the case, that Wilkins is suggesting the issue of non-elect covenant members is an issue not directly addressed by the Confession and therefore, like the husband/wife issue, deserves our attention and can be correctly addressed as long as it is consistent with the system of doctrine contained in the WCF?
Todd said,
December 23, 2006 at 1:45 am
David G,
So, in Ephesians 1 and 2, some of the blessings are ascribed to the whole church, while others only to the elect?
“13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”
Who has been brought near? Just the elect? Or the whole church through union with Christ? Is Paul really saying, “Some of you have been brought near, but not all of you.”?
“18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.”
Who has access? Just certain members of the church, or the church as a whole? Who are no longer strangers and aliens? Just the elect, or the whole church through union with Christ?
What is the holy temple? Visible or invisible?
Lane writes: “Therefore, since Paul plainly urges here a complete and utter salvation, there can be no question of “covenantal-but-losable” blessings.”
Not even membership in the household of God?
greenbaggins said,
December 23, 2006 at 10:55 am
David and Todd, I am not advocating that the WCF is exhaustive. That ought to be evident, since the WCF is very short compared with the inexhaustible riches of the Word. That would be my answer to Christ’s resurrection being His vindication (which I do believe, though He is not justified in the same way that we are). While the WCF is somewhat reticent (not entirely, as even Wilkins admits) about non-elect covenant members, the WCF is not even remotely reticent about non-believers and the non-elect in general. David, I agree in principle with your third paragraph. However, I would not argue that this is what Wilkins is doing. I would argue that he is undermining the confession. Everything I’ve said so far on that score has been to prove that point. Wilkins says that his purpose is merely to describe the state and benefits of non-elect covenant members (many, including Witsius and Turretin, would regard “non-elect covenant members” as an oxymoron). However, what he winds up doing is far more extensive, and it is here that the problems arise. His construct affects practically every loci in ST, ranging from baptism to the church to the covenant of works (and therefore justifiction).
David McCrory said,
December 23, 2006 at 11:01 am
Lane, do you believe the covenant of grace includes both elect and non-elect members? Or elect members alone?
David McCrory said,
December 23, 2006 at 11:04 am
Also, as has come up on DW’s blog, I suppose you don’t believe then that Wilkins (and all FVer’s) hold to an honest subscription to the Confession? In other words, you are attributting to them an intentional effort to subvert the teachings of the Confession and are wickedly motivated towards undermining Reformed Theology altogether? Is this accurate?
greenbaggins said,
December 23, 2006 at 11:28 am
David, with regard to comment 9, I have not decided yet what I think. I believe that there are some passages that would seem to support the former, and some that seem to support the latter. What I can say is that if the former, then there is certainly differentiation ontologically between the elect and the non-elect. This is assured, of course, if the latter position is true.
With regard to number 10, I don’t pretend to read motives. I think Wilkins undermines the WCF. Whether he does that knowingly and deliberately, or unintentionally is really not for me to say. I would hope that he is doing it unintentionally.
greenbaggins said,
December 23, 2006 at 11:30 am
And just by way of addendum to my comments on your comment 9, David, if the latter position is correct, then there is certainly a sense in which non-elect members of the church have the “externals” of the covenant. I think that I wind up with a distinction without a difference. If I hold to the former, then there must be some differentiation within the covenant. If I hold to the latter, then there is the same differentiation. We are merely saying then that unbelievers don’t have the substance of the covenant (salvation).
Todd said,
December 23, 2006 at 12:45 pm
“That ought to be evident, since the WCF is very short compared with the inexhaustible riches of the Word. That would be my answer to Christ’s resurrection being His vindication (which I do believe, though He is not justified in the same way that we are).”
Uh oh, Lane.
“Justification is *******NEVER******* used in a way different from the WCF, and I will die on this one, Todd.” November 30, 2006 at 4:21 pm
greenbaggins said,
December 23, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Justification of us, Todd.
Todd said,
December 23, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Whew. The capital letters and all the asterisks made me think you really meant never. My bad. But I’m gold you’re not gonna die.
greenbaggins said,
December 23, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Right. The context of that quotation was a discussion of how we are justified, and whether there is a covenantal justification of *people,* or not. There isn’t, and that is the hill upon which I will die. Jesus is unique in this regard. His vindication is not because of faith on His part. His vindication is because of His complete obedience to the law. He was justified by the works of the law.
greenbaggins said,
December 23, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Besides, WCF 11.4 and LC 52 connect explicitly Christ’s resurrection with our justification. This would strongly imply some sort of vindication of Christ, else He could not be our justification in resurrection. I think that the divines thought about this.
Todd said,
December 23, 2006 at 1:27 pm
“He was justified by the works of the law.”
You’d think that Paul would have said it like this at least once. What he does say, of course, is that he was justified by the Spirit in his resurrection.
Todd said,
December 23, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Lane: “Paul assumes (being human, of course) that his readers are elect. He is not saying that they actually are elect.”
Besides John Barach’s AAPC talks and the corresponding chapter in the FV book, the best concise presentation of the alternative to the “judgment of charity” interpretation of passages like Ephesians 1 is Tim Gallant’s short paper, “Covenant and election: A brief introduction to various views.”
http://www.biblicalstudiescenter.org/interpretation/covenantandelection.htm
His dependence on John Barach’s talks from AAPC is clear, but Gallant summarizes his view in an especially provacative way that I don’t think comes from Barach: “The Covenant as a Conditional Promise of an Unconditional Election.”
The concept of “promise” has not played much of a part in the debates here on Lane’s blog. It’s not the polar opposite of the “judgment of charity,” but it’s more specific, more theological, more covenantal and Hebraic.
Barach: “God’s speech to us is trustworthy because it is God who is speaking, and He speaks to us in a *promissory* way. In speech God pledges Himself to us, to be our God. We tend to think of a promise as a prediction: “This is going to happen no matter what.” But that is not how God’s promises work in Scripture. By *promise* I mean that God is pledging and giving himself to us in words. We tend to think that promises relate to the future, but in our confessional and theological heritage that word *promise* can also refer to past events.” Federal Vision, page 35-36.
FWIW!
David McCrory said,
December 25, 2006 at 11:07 am
Christ, the Second Adam, fulfilled the Law and satisfied the justice of God on our behalf. I know there seems to be a tendency to play down the active obedience of Christ, but it seems this point is pretty clear.
Todd said,
December 25, 2006 at 11:52 am
One question about active obedience, which I affirm wholeheartedly. No hope without it.
In the NT itself, is the main emphasis that Christ was obedient to Torah, or that Christ was obedient to the calling of Israel? Fr example, in the gospels, do the writers make a point to emphasize the way Jesus obeys the details of the law, or do they make a point to emphasize the way he fulfills the details of the story of of Israel? These aren’t mutually exclusive, of course, but where is the emphasis placed in the NT itself?
greenbaggins said,
December 26, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Todd, the theology of promise as a possible alternative to judgment of charity: how does it apply specifically to Eph 1, for example? Does God promise election from before the foundation of the earth, or does He actually do it? I guess I have a hard time thinking of promise without thinking of “unfulfilled.” That does not seem to me to be what Paul is talking about.
Todd, wasn’t it the calling of Israel to obey Torah? You have admitted that the two “alternatives” are not mutually exclusive. I’m not sure but what they’re the same thing. And certainly, I would be the last person to deny that Christ was obedienct to the calling of Israel. He certainly was. And the NT stresses this. But I believe that Philippians 2 strongly places emphasis on the obedience of Christ to the law (surely in all its facets). Romans strongly emphasizes the obedience of Christ to the law.