The Elect and the Reprobate Within the Covenant
January 4, 2007 at 10:28 am (Federal Vision, Heresy, Westminster standards)
I am not here addressing the issue of whether the covenant should be defined as being made with the elect only, or whether it is broader. My question here is this: how should we describe those members of the covenant administration who are not decretally elect?
What I really wish to do is to expound one of the few places in the WCF that deals with this question. WCF 10.4 in full says this: “Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.”
The relevant portion of this section stops after the words “cannot be saved,” since the portion after that refers not to non-elect covenant members, but to people outside the visible church altogether.
I merely wish here to emphasize what the Confession says here: the common operations of the Spirit do not involve true union with Christ, and do not involve salvation. How simple can it get here? They never truly come to Christ, and therefore they cannot be saved. This runs directly counter to FV interpretations of John 15, for instance, which claim that the non-elect covenant member is truly united to Christ by baptism. Barach uses the rhetorical flourish “not joined to the vine by Scotch tape” or words very much like it. See this post for an exposition. It is important to realize the group of people that the WCF is talking about in the first part of this section: it is the people who may receive common operations of the Spirit, but who are not eternally elect. We are not talking about pagans in this section, but members of the covenant community, the very people about whom the FV is concerned.
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 10:49 am
“They never truly come to Christ, and therefore they cannot be saved.”
Right. But they’re objects of the Spirit’s work, and, as you’ve admitted elsewhere, there is such thing as covenantal union with Christ through membership in the visible church. They are members of the family of God.
greenbaggins said,
January 4, 2007 at 10:58 am
As long as this covenantal union is not seen as true, saving union, but as an external connection, I am fine with that.
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 11:08 am
As external as a sucker on an apple tree. But this union is still the work of God’s Spirit.
The sucker is alive, right? It grows?
greenbaggins said,
January 4, 2007 at 11:09 am
Alive in one sense, dead in another. They are alive physically, but dead spiritually.
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 11:11 am
But the sucker on the apple tree gets its life from the tree, right?
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 11:16 am
I think both of you are pressing the analogy passed it’s capabiltiy to express the reality. You must look elsewhere in the Bible evidence that supports this illustration one way or the other.
Seth McBee said,
January 4, 2007 at 11:38 am
is this not the same reason that the Arminians would give that some can lose their salvation? One looks to be doing the work of the Spirit, then later in life they fall away…hence, to the Arminian, since they seemed to be doing the work of the Spirit they must have been saved and then lost that salvation…one problem…we don’t know their heart.
What about King Asa? He started off “seeking the Lord” and then in the end stopped? He seemed to be doing the work of the Spirit but in the end looks as though he wasn’t truly God’s servant, but God used him…I know this is OT but still with much application to the view.
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 12:03 pm
David and Seth, I want to say no less and no more than this parable says.
No less: Some of the branches are 1. in Christ but 2. fruitless. They will be cut off and burned up.
No more: Are the fruitless branches dead? The text doesn’t say so. And the suckers from Lane’s illustration aren’t either, until Lane cuts them off.
Of course it’s important to coordinate what we learn here with what we learn in other passages. But we must not let ourselves pretend that this passage says any more or any less than it does. This is a Calvinist passage, not an Arminian passage.
pduggie said,
January 4, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I really perfer public vs. private to exterinal/internal.
Public acts have a certain “reality” to them, that “external” acts lack in most people’s understanding
greenbaggins said,
January 4, 2007 at 12:14 pm
1 John 2:19 must interpret this parable. They went out from us when they apostatized, but were *never* of us. In your interpretation, in what way were they never of us?
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 12:50 pm
They never truly came to Christ.
But, in some other sense, they were in him. And then severed from him.
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Todd, can you elaborate on “in some sense”?
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Not so much, since the Bible doesn’t define this connection. Jesus says only what he says, and if we can’t define anything beyond that, no problem.
I think we in the WCF tradition ought to emphasize instead of suppress what the WCF says about members of the visible church; they are members of God’s family and God’s household, and Christ’s kingdom. Period, as Lane would say.
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I agree w/ you. Does the Bible helps us in our understanding in what sense they aren’t in Him? Could you clarify in that direction. What does this exclude rather than include?
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Not included: fruit, Jn 15. Truly coming to Christ, WCF. Salvation, WCF.
Included: covenantal sanctification, Heb 10. Etc.
On the other hand, David, I’m wondering whether your question is really important. That’s not a put down, but why not just preach the text? When preaching John 15, why not just preach it, with few qulalifications and disclaimiers? Wait for your series on 1 John to do 1 Jn 2:19.
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I can understand from your perspective the question of relevance. But I’m afraid your suggesting we isolate this text from the rest of Scripture. If I Jn is relevant to this passage it should be referenced should it not? We can fall into gross error tearing passages out of the context of the whole of Scripture.
Justification, sanctification, perservance, etc. are recieved by saving faith (saved by grace through faith) in Christ. Non-elect covenant members don’t exercise saving faith therefore can in no way recieve the benefits accompanied with it can they?
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Typing that last paragraph made me think of this lecture from a Covenant Seminary preaching conference:
http://www.covenantseminary.edu/resource/Rayburn_PreachingThePoles.mp3
Have you heard it? What do you think?
Stewart said,
January 4, 2007 at 1:42 pm
“My question here is this: how should we describe those members of the covenant administration who are not decretally elect?”
I have a radical idea: I say we describe them as members of the covenant who are not decretally elect.
But the fact still remains, however, that they are members of the covenant, not halfway members or fake members, but real members who can really apostatize.
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 1:42 pm
“We can fall into gross error tearing passages out of the context of the whole of Scripture.”
Absolutely. But we can also fall into gross error by qualifying away the way the Bible actually talks.
Lane says that 1 John 2:19 must interpret John 15. I agree wholeheartedly. But isn’t it just as true to say that John 15 must interpret 1 John 2:19? Why hasn’t Lane said it both ways? Is he comfortable saying it both ways? Are you? If not, are we really letting the Bible interpret the Bible, or are we letting our tradition’s theological emphases interpret the Bible?
“Non-elect covenant members don’t exercise saving faith therefore can in no way recieve the benefits accompanied with it can they?”
Absolutely right.
But it’s just as legitimate to ask what benefits non-elect covenant members do receive from their covenantal union with Christ, benefits they will lose if they fall away from grace and are severed from Christ, Gal. 5. This is the way the Bible speaks to them, in’t it?
David, I’m very eager to hear what you think of the Rayburn lecture.
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I’ll listen to it when I can.
“But it’s just as legitimate to ask what benefits non-elect covenant members do receive from their covenantal union with Christ…”
This is what I asked you to elaborate on. Can we agree it is much harder to say what they do receive than it is to say what they do not? Non-elect covenant members are still under the Law, not grace. As a result, we can know that part of the benefit of being in covenant is in the restraint and accountabilty provided in and through the covenant.
pduggie said,
January 4, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Here’s another dimension of the problem.
Two elect regenerate people are united to Christ together, as he is their Head. Because they are united in him, they share a union with each other in love. That is expressed daily in their lived experience.
It is unknown to them if Person X is also actually an elect regenerate person. Person X seems to be from all humanly knowable criteria. If in fact he is, then they share common union with him in Christ. If he is not, they don’t TRULY share that union.
But then what is the difference in their lived experience? If there is any detectable difference, then it is in fact knowable that Person X is not in fact elect and regenerate. If it is not detectable, then what charcaterizes their union? Is it an “external” union with Beliver A and B only? Something else?
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 2:23 pm
“Can we agree it is much harder to say what they do receive than it is to say what they do not?”
I don’t know whether I agree with that or not. I’m pretty happy simply to say what the Bible says about the visible church. And the Bible says a lot; more than the WCF. Some are calling this kind of attitude “biblicism,” but I’m not too bugged by that.
“Non-elect covenant members are still under the Law, not grace.”
I wonder. In Romans 6, this language is part of his exposition of baptism.
Anne said,
January 4, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Don’t y’all think the primary benefit to being in the covenant is having been placed in a position to hear the gospel expounded, be “in Christ” by being present in the assembly of the saints’, and so on?
I’ve pointed this out to my teenage son from Russia, who dislikes “chapel” (though the time I drove him to Dallas for a Russian-language Russian Orthodox service he was bored and ready to leave after 20 minutes, the nuisance) and has not yet placed his faith in Christ. The LORD has sovereignly placed him in a believing family, so he hears the gospel, hears the Bible read, and is instructed in the faith, in a way those who are never adopted will not enjoy.
This is a sign of God’s favor, at least temporally, as his being here is not a matter of chance but rather divine design. But then I warn him, if he continues to reject Christ, even after - as Hebrews says - having been enlightened and tasted “the good Word of God”, it will be worse for him at judgment.
ISTM this is one of the most positive aspects of the FV, if they’ll only highlight it…increased awareness that people don’t trip and stumble or otherwise wind up by happenstance in the realm of the covenant, but are deliberately placed there by a sovereign God, whether via birth, adoption, or marriage. (Which last, BTW, is what I believe Paul meant when he said unbelieving children and spouses are holy/sanctified…they’ve been set apart to enjoy ready access to the gospel, which is a blessing denied so very, very many people.)
pduggie said,
January 4, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Wow! Thanks Anne! I think they would highlight it if they didn’t have to fight a rearguard action against heresy-slingers.
But youre hitting all the high points
“in Christ” = “in the assembly”
“Baptized” = “sovereignly placed in the Kingdom and Family”
“being assured by baptism” = “seeing the hand of a loving God in drawing you near to salvation”
“living a Christian life” = “experienceing the powers of the Age to Come”
etc.
But everyone freaks out when you say being in the People of God is being “In Christ”. Since “in Christ” = “truesavingunion” = “eternal election” in the mind of many.
Thomas Twitchell said,
January 4, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Todd,
I thought there was a difference systemically between suckers and non-fruit bearing branches over against fruit bearing branches. Though they are ontogenetically the same they are not phylogenetically the same. What I mean by that is the former has all the structure externally, (which is the proper way to say it rather than public for both share public attributes in every way but only externally and believers cannot have communion internally with non-believers, only externally). The latter is controlled by a different hidden teleological genesis. Simply, it is designed for a different purpose. The former cannot bear fruit (if they bear simulant fruit at all it is a false fruit in that it is not bearing fruit that returns to the source, John 15) except that it steals life from the root. That which steals life is a murderer. They suck life from the tree, hence the name sucker. Their target is not just to do damage to the true branches, but to kill the Root. The true branch and hence its fruit is to lay down its life for its friend. So, greenbaggins reference to 1 John 2.19 is to the point. Friends do not abandon friends, nor do they seek to kill their brother. The good “groomer” trims away the suckers and unfruitful branches to maintain the life of the tree, Root to true fruit. So, we have been given the judicial responsibility to excommunicate those who’s dead life is detrimental to the health of the body.
There are two ways (amonge others) that God administers this. First, is the man whose sin is obvious and can be treated as a non-believer (even though they may not be a true one), the other is the man whose sin follows him and is exposed in the congregation by the light of the Word of God in operation upon the hearts of the generate and unregenerate alike, in such a way that all things hidden in darkness are made manifest by the light. There are two ways that this becomes evident. They either leave on their own accord, or their discourse, (divisive behaviors in speach or action), is discovered as false and they are summarily put out because of it.
So, yes there is life, but just as there is life, bios and it is death, there is life, zoe and it is truly alive (I am not using these terms in a technical sense but as a means of compare and contrast). Just as we were dead men walking, so too are dead branches in the vine looking very much alive. The picture is made more relevant in the view of Judas who was in the company and was not of it. All the externals where there. By all inferences, he preached, he performed miracles and communed with the Lord. And was a partaker of the Passover. But in that very Passover the Lord himself makes it clear and reconfirms a earlier statement that Judas was not of the One. Judas in all appearances was of the vine but did not have the life in himself that was the light of men. But, as Jesus said, he was a devil from the beginning, (John 1-3.21)
If it is not clear by now that the “beneifts” of the Holy Spirit have differing effects upon the individual dependent upon what is in him, it will never be clear until the Lord himself makes the light to shine out of darkness. The common operations of the Spirit are made evident in several places beside the life of Judas. There is both at the same time in Corinth, the true branch and the false. Both branches speak in tongues, one is of the flesh the other of the Spirit. John testifies to these two look alikes, also. The manifestation of truth can come from a poisoned well. The young slave girl who prophesied that the Aspostles were servants of the most high God and out of whom the demon was cast demonstrates, this. The fruit of her lips was in all appearances true, but the administration of the Spirit in the Apostles made it evident to them that she was not of the Truth. This same testimony is made of Simon the magician, who having fallen into discipleship was later exposed as a fraud. What disposition later befell him we do not know, but we do know that he was in “covenant,” as a follower of the Apostiles teaching, Acts 8.13. The OT examples of people who were under the umbrella of the covenant are too numerous to cite, yet, in these is the ” beginnings of separations, Genesis-Exodus” of the true from false, clearly made. To the ones who do not mix the benefits with faith the benefits benefit them only temporally and end in their destruction. Then, it is the gift of Faith that is mediated only to the Elect by the Mediator of Grace that is the determining factor of whether or not a person in in Covenant, but to those who are not first given Faith as the life which is both the substance and the evidence of the promise hoped for, then Christ is only the mediator of judgement.
Beside the manifestations of the spirit forms of “benefits,” i.e. miracles, tongues and other sign gifts, “benefits” of the covenant include baptism, the Lord’s Supper, preaching, teaching and the receiving of material support. In each case it can be demonstrated that even though these benefits are extended to those in visible communion with the body of believers they are not of the same essential kind as those that fall to the elect. That is they do not “benefit” in terms of sanctifying graces, which is the fruitful union with Christ. They may have the effect of hardening the heart of the unregenerate, and this for two purposes. One is seen in the hardening of the heart of Pharoah to his damnation, the other can be seen in its effect on Paul, who thought not of the household of faith was impacted by the grace of God’s word to the hardening of his heart so that it might be crushed and made anew to bear fruit for Christ to the glory of God the Father.
There are so many ways that the common graces of providence ,both for the exectution of God’s will for the world and for the Church, operate. In every case though the two kinds of mediation through Christ are exemplified. One as Judge and the carrying out of God’s good justice, and the other as Mediator of the Covenant of Grace to the elect.
What strikes me is the blindness, as greenbaggins has elucidated, that the FV exihibits. The teaching of the two administrations, mediations, means, what ever you want call it, is so clear that it only leaves one possible reason that it is not understood, that being the Devil is far more powerful than we realize when it comes to use of language for confusing the things that have been given to us to freely understand.
And, thank-you Seth. You are right the FV formula reverts to an old heresy.
pduggie said,
January 4, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Can you tell when you’re having merely external communion with another professing Christian? Do you let them know?
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 3:18 pm
“I wonder. In Romans 6, this language is part of his exposition of baptism.”
Yes but the efficacy of baptism is only realized when embraced by saving faith. Therefore the grace that comes through baptism is only realized when received by faith. There are many who, in the last day, will have been baptized and yet never benefit from it, having not embraced all it signifies and seals when recieved by faith. This is why non-elect covenant members (NECM’s) remain outside God’s special grace, while inside the covenant under the commom operations of the Spirit & common grace.
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Todd, do you beleive the sacraments to work ex opera operato?
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I’ll only answer you if you can spell the Latin right.
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 3:36 pm
“There are many who, in the last day, will have been baptized and yet never benefit from it, having not embraced all it signifies and seals when recieved by faith.”
Never benefit from it? Or benefit from it only temporarily? Whether received by faith or not, it remains admission into the family and household of God. This doesn’t depend on a response of faith in your view, does it?
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 3:55 pm
It appears those of the FV persuasion are either, intentionally or unintentionally, attributing the benefits of Christ that only come through saving faith to those who never exercise saving faith. It is a misapplication of the work of Christ. Saving faith is granted to God’s elect who are renegerated, justified, sanctified, perserved, and ultimately glorified. One of the distinguishing marks of saving faith vs. other “faiths” is it’s persevering feature. By the inherent virture of saving faith, it is a perservering faith. Therefore, any other faith, temporary, historical, etc. doesn’t contain this persevering attribute and there doesn’t contain the benefits of Christ reserved for the saving faith of the elect. It is a different faith altogether originating from man, not from God.
It is by grace, through faith we recieve the benefits of Christ. This is the distinction between the elect and the non-elect. The elect have been given the faith necessary to receive, and have applied to them, the redemptive benefits of Christ, while the non-elect have not been given the saving faith necessary to obtain the same benefits. Saving faith is the sine qua non of the blessings of Christ.
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 3:59 pm
How about ex opere operato?
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Excellent. “opere”: third declension, ablative singular.
Of course I don’t believe that baptism works ex opere operato, in the sense I suspect you are asking about.
On the other hand, though, who does? Not even the RC church believes that baptism saves automatically, completely irrespective of the disposition of the one baptized.
Also, I’ll ask you again whether you believe that baptism places the baptized into the visible church, even apart from faith. What do you think?
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 4:11 pm
“Never benefit from it? Or benefit from it only temporarily?”
It is temporary. And it is only a benefit in one sense. In another sense it is a curse. To reject the greater light of covenant living is certainly not good.
Todd, I’m having difficulty pin pointing your differences with the TR thinking on this, you seem to agree with much of what they say. Where exactly is your disagreement?
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 4:14 pm
” I’ll ask you again whether you believe that baptism places the baptized into the visible church…?”
Of course.
David Gadbois said,
January 4, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Lane, if you’d be OK with it, could you e-mail me ‘offline’? My address is in all my posts, so you should have it.
pduggie said,
January 4, 2007 at 4:34 pm
“By the inherent virture of saving faith, it is a perservering faith. Therefore, any other faith, temporary, historical, etc. doesn’t contain this persevering attribute and there doesn’t contain the benefits of Christ reserved for the saving faith of the elect.”
That’s the kind of language that gets Shepherd and the FV in trouble from the other direction. “Now you’re saying that God contemplates perseverenace, faithfulness, and a life of faith in deciding to justify someone? The “inherent virtue” of it is that it’s going to last for a long time? You’ve denied the reformation…”
(yes, Englesma actually makes this kind of complaint against Wilkins (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=221) “the covenant is conditional. Whether the covenant is continued with a child, whether a child continues in the covenant, whether a child continues to enjoy union with Christ and covenant grace, and whether a child is finally saved by the grace of the covenant depend upon the child’s faith and obedience. The movement is full-fledged Arminianism in the realm of the covenant.” and then he quotes Wilkins “To be in covenant is to have the treasures of God’s mercy and grace and the love which He has for His own Son given to you. But the covenant is not unconditional. It requires persevering faithfulness…. The covenant is dependent upon persevering faith [Wilkins, 64, 65; the emphasis is the author’s].”
So watch out, they may come for you next.
pduggie said,
January 4, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Is the “federal holiness” of covenant children a common benefit of the covenant, or one only the elect enjoy?
pduggie said,
January 4, 2007 at 4:37 pm
“It is a different faith altogether originating from man, not from God.”
Noone can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Spirit of God.
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 4:40 pm
pd, how does saying saving faith is perservering faith going to get me in trouble with TR’s? That’s as orthodusty as you can get.
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 4:44 pm
“Todd, I’m having difficulty pin pointing your differences with the TR thinking on this, you seem to agree with much of what they say. Where exactly is your disagreement?”
Finally! Some one understands me! I’m a straight-forward WCF guy, as far as I can tell.
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Todd, are you saying you have no substantive differences with the TR view of FV?
pduggie said,
January 4, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I dunno. If Wilkins affirms it there must be *something* wrong with it “Thus, the quality of temporary faith, even the nature of temporary faith, is different from the nature of true and living and persevering faith.”
pduggie said,
January 4, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Porbably what’s “wrong” with it is you saying the “virtue” of it is the perseverance. If that’s the case, the fact that faith given will last for the life of the Christian means that the faith will issue forth in fruit, and that fruit-bearing then is also a “virtue” of faith that makes it saving.
Then you get into questions of “living” faith, which means faith that is “made alive” by works (James), and you end up sounding like Norm Shepherd.
Its the trajectory…
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I don’t think any TR is saying that pd, even straight-legged Lane. Wilkins and other FVer’s often say every orthodox things, in and of themselves. But it is the degree of ambiguity when their system of doctrine is taken as a whole that alarms the TR’s
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 5:04 pm
It is a virture, but not the only virture. To quote something I said eariler:
“Justification, sanctification, perservance, etc. are (all D.M.) recieved by saving faith (saved by grace through faith) in Christ.”
Anne said,
January 4, 2007 at 6:09 pm
ISTM y’all are in effective talking past each other.
The “orthodusty” definition of faith, first of all, has as a foundational assumption that it is a “saving faith.” Until recently no qualifier was necessary when one spoke of “faith”…if one has faith in Christ, it’s because one has been regenerated, and is guaranteed to some day dump out in glory. Sometimes, of course, there would be warnings about “false” faith, or being deceived in your faith. But “faith” itself was assumed to be real, true, saving, and the result of regeneration and the washing of the Holy Spirit.
Like they say, though, that was then…this is now. Now there is said to be a “real” but temporary faith; as Wilkins put it in the AAPC Position Paper on Covenant, Baptism, etc.:
“Included in His decree, however, is that some persons, not destined for final salvation, will be drawn to Christ and His people only for a time. These, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ’s cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament.” (#
The difference between being drawn to Christ “only for a time” and remaining drawn to Him until “final salvation” (#7) is “the gift of perseverance” (#10).
Essentially, the faith is the same, but receiving “the gift of perseverance” along with it is the determining factor as to whether a believer will persevere until final salvation.
So I think David is speaking of faith in the “orthodust” manner, assuming that if it’s real faith it necessarily, inevitably and by definition is a persevering faith (since there isn’t any other kind of “real” faith), while the FV says a believer can possess “real” faith, only it’ll lose traction before the end unless the additional grace of perseverance is given.
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Yes, Anne “real” faith cannot lose traction or it excludes itself from being “real” faith.
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 7:19 pm
“Todd, are you saying you have no substantive differences with the TR view of FV?”
Only if the TR view of FV is “open but cautious.”
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I’ll observe again that Anne is quoting from an out-of-date, defunct, unrevised version of the statement from AAPC.
Here’s the revised version:
http://www.auburnavenue.org/Official%20Positions%20and%20Statements/summary%20statement%20on%20baptism.htm
David M., do you agree or disagree with #8, as Anne has quoted it?
Anne said,
January 4, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Dang. Really? I’m sorry, that’s the one that shows up when I google it.
And “observe again”? Mercy Maud, I am batting zero for observance, then, as I apparently skipped right over where you told me that before.
Thanks for the heads-up, Todd! ;^)
[muttering] Doggone Google. You’d think a company selling for as near $500 per share as makes no difference could manage to cough up the right copy.
Anne said,
January 4, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Well, except #8’s exactly the same in both versions.
What I find striking is a scripture passage that is missing from the AAPC position paper, i.e. Matthew 7:21-23:
21″ Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22″ Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
You know, t’would appear the condemned in the above passage persevered until the end. I mean, they’re at the gate, apparently. What is unnerving, of course, is Christ’s words to them: “I never knew you.”
Also chapter 25:
31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’ [snip]
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels…”
Elect goats? The FV is promoting elect goats? Apparently so, if there are people “drawn to Christ” for a season, “who enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ’s cross” yet still wind up in hell.
Trouble is, how can Christ have “never known them” since He purchased blessings for them by His cross?
The FV put a lot of emphasis on John 15, but to my mind it’s these passages in Matthew that are the most load-bearing. There are two kinds of humans, the sheep and the goats. Christ knows, loves, and died for His sheep. Sheep do not go to hell. He did NOT love and die for the goats.
There aren’t any sheep in hell, and there are no goats in heaven.
The FV doesn’t jibe in the slightest with these passages in Matthew, so far’s I can see.
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 8:12 pm
“There are two kinds of humans, the sheep and the goats.”
But this is a picture of the end of the age, when the “true identity” of each individual will become manifest to all. Meanwhile, things are more complex. the three categories you’ve complained about seem to be inevitable:
1. the elect, the invisible church
2. the non-elect in the visible church
3. the rest of humanity, with no connection at all
From God’s perspective and during history, an individual can be both a goat (ultimately) and a branch in the vine.
“The FV put a lot of emphasis on John 15, but to my mind it’s these passages in Matthew that are the most load-bearing.”
But why choose? Why not emphasize both?
“Apparently so, if there are people “drawn to Christ” for a season, “who enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ’s cross” yet still wind up in hell.”
Anne, you’ve emphasized the real blessings the the non-elect enjoy by being part of the visible church (#23 in this thread). So what’s the problem with this part of the AAPC statement?
You’ve made a great point about certain people seeming to persevere but still being condemned at the end. Another aspect of God’s word to emphasize.
Anne Ivy said,
January 4, 2007 at 8:34 pm
I’m all in favor of emphasizing both, Todd, only I’ve yet to see any FV’er (okay, it’s just barely possible I’ve overlooked someone….JOKE!) really get down to cases with these passages from Matthew.
It’s always John 15. I swear, one would hardly know there are any other passages except John 15, Hebrews 6, and part of Ephesians (note: that was Extreme Hyperbole, not intended to be taken literally).
Todd inquired: …you’ve emphasized the real blessings the the non-elect enjoy by being part of the visible church (#23 in this thread). So what’s the problem with this part of the AAPC statement?
I suppose that, much as it’s certainly a blessing to be sitting square in the middle of the covenant-keeping-as-best-they-can part of the creation, I’ve never considered Dmitry’s adoption to be a blessing purchased by the cross.
So far he’s not been spiritually changed by his close proximity to Christians (though it’s only been a little over three years and he’s just 16, so it’s not like there’s no hope). I tend to think of “blessings purchased by the cross” to be, one, spiritual in nature, and two, eternal. A temporal situation may be a valuable gift from the LORD, but I can’t quite see a temporal situation as being a blessing purchased by the cross.
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 9:11 pm
“I tend to think of “blessings purchased by the cross” to be, one, spiritual in nature, and two, eternal.”
Great, honest answer. How about Acts 20:28? “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” Is this a reference to the whole church, or only the elect within it? Is it the calling of overseers to care for the whole church, or only the elect within it?
Anne Ivy said,
January 4, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I’ve thought he meant it’s the whole church, working on the theory everyone’s actually gonna persevere though being aware some doubtless won’t.
I suppose one could make the case that since if Christ hadn’t been born, lived a perfectly righteous life, was crucified, died, and was resurrected, then there would be no temporal church for the faux believers to be a part of, in that sense He obtained the whole shebang, tares, goats and all, with His blood.
Sort of seems like a stretch, though.
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Paul posted parts of this paragraph from John Murray in the comments on another post, but it’s worth reading as a whole:
“Many benefits accrue to the non-elect from the redemptive work of Christ. There is more than one consideration to establish this proposition. Many blessings are dispensed to men indiscriminately because God is fulfilling His redemptive purpose in the world. Much in the way of order, equity, benevolence, and mercy is the fruit of the Gospel and the Gospel is God’s redemptive revelation centered in the gift of His Son. Believers are enjoined to “do good to all men” (Galatians 6:10) and compliance has beneficient results. But their identity as believers proceeds from redemption. Again, it is by virtue of what Christ has done that there is a Gospel of salvation proclaimed to all without distinction. Are we to say that the unrestricted overture of grace is not grace to those to whom it comes? Furthermore, we must remember that all the good dispensed to this world is dispensed within the mediatorial dominion of Christ. He is given all authority in heaven and in earth and He is head over all things. But he is given this dominion as the reward of his obedience unto death (cf. Philippians 2:8,9), and his obedience unto death is but one way of characterizing what we mean by the atonement. Thus all the good showered on this world, dispensed by Christ in the exercise of his exalted lordship, is related to the death of Christ and accrues to man in one way or another from the death of Christ. If so, it was designed to accrue from the death of Christ. Since many of the blessings fall short of salvation and are enjoyed by many who never become the possessors of salvation, we must say that the design of Christ’s death is more inclusive than the blessings that belong specifically to the atonement. This is to say that even the non-elect are embraced in the design of the atonement in respect of those blessings falling short of salvation which they enjoy in this life. This is equivalent to saying that the atonement sustains this reference to the non-elect and it would not be improper to say that, in respect of what is entailed for the non-elect, Christ died for them.”
david said,
January 4, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I wonder how Calvin’s emphasis on the gift of Christ himself in the sacraments - one cannot separate gift from giver - factors into this. In other words, ‘benefits’ given are not separate from Christ. non-elect covenant particapants-sacrament recipients, if acknowledged to possess any genuine benefit - even when considered as a temporary ’sign of life’ and not a manifestation of the gift of eternal - have these *in some way* in Christ. That such a ‘union’ is genuine, though not salvific, seems backed up by both the John 15 and Matthew 7 passages. Indeed, the Matthew 7 passages deal not with apostasy explicitly, but perhaps rather more specifically with hypocrisy (of the highest order of course!), much like Jude’s ‘blemishes - hidden reefs in (your) love feasts…autumn trees without fruit…waterless clouds…wandering stars”, etc. Those in view here, as in Matthew 7, are ‘false’ ministers, or what Jesus calls ‘false prophets’, rather than the non-elect members of the body, generally considered.
I would also suggest including Psalm 80 in this discussion, where the Vine of Israel is identified with God’s ‘Son of his right hand’ that he will raise up. Jesus IS the ‘true vine’, yet with him, as always, even under the Old administration, there have been fruitless and false branches - as well as false prophets.
I know that many find Calvin to be ‘inconsistent’ (a word I often hear) with his sacramental teaching. But I think he is actually very consistent and quite helpful.
I appreciate the discussion. Best to all.
david said,
January 4, 2007 at 9:44 pm
And of course I meant to write ‘eternal life’ rather than merely ‘eternal’.
DC
Todd said,
January 4, 2007 at 9:51 pm
David, that’s a fantastic post.
david said,
January 4, 2007 at 10:10 pm
“I am not here addressing the issue of whether the covenant should be defined as being made with the elect only, or whether it is broader. My question here is this: how should we describe those members of the covenant administration who are not decretally elect?”
This is where the thread began, and I think this is a very good pastoral question. Since we (obviously) don’t know the names in the book as it were (”The Lord knows those who are his”), not being privy to the divine decree of election, what terms would be best employed for the baptized, communing church member? Would we not all say, “Brother” and “Sister”, or “Christian”? Admittedly, I would not and could not use the term ‘Christian’ to describe a person living scandalously, denouncing their faith in word and deed, whether baptized or other not. For such a one who has been baptized we may say ‘Prodigal’ (in hope), or ‘Apostate’ (in despair). The same would be the case congregationally - the ‘church’ that called and installed and celebrates the lesbian woman ‘pastor’ who preaches from Dr. Seuss on Sunday and offers communion with milk and honey while calling on Sophia as Mother God(dess) is not an unfaithful Christian Church, but more aptly ‘a synagogue of Satan’. Obviosuly hypocrisy is often far more difficult to detect! But since the word ‘Christian’ arises from the world’s observation of the covenant community, said community must be in some way a joyous, faithful, loving, provocation to that world through its bold witness to Jesus the Lord and His Gospel.
And until someone shows that they are not ‘in heart’ what the waters of baptism called them to be (ie Simon - Acts 8:18ff) then we can call them ‘Christian’; after that, we can refer to them in other terms, praying for them always. That there are non-elect members of the elect people is hardly news. That we call all baptized people who are communing faithful church members ‘Christian’, leaving the hidden things to God, the God who on the last day reveals the secrets of mens’ hearts, is certainly right. AND, just as Paul was eager to preach the Gospel to people in Rome who were already ‘Christian’ we do so as well, knowing as we do that they are ‘not all Israel who are called Israel’, and that the grace conferred to the elect in baptism is nevertheless nutrued into fully flowering faith with all the graces that accompany so great a salvation.
Genuine union with Christ and his Church in the covenant must also lead to covenant living, or the union is not salvific.
Anne Ivy said,
January 4, 2007 at 10:30 pm
I was with him till the final sentence, as I believe it would be significantly improper to say Christ died for the non-elect. Did Christ’s perfect life and death benefit all His creation to one degree or another? To be sure, it did.
That’s a far cry from saying He died for the non-elect, though.
I don’t generally make a big deal about it, however. Mark Driscoll, whom I rather like and I don’t CARE, takes pretty much the same view, IIRC. Disagreed with him a bit but it doesn’t mean I don’t like most of what he says.
In any case, heaven knows there are plenty of good, solid Christians who hold to unlimited atonement, meaning they really do believe Christ died for everyone without exception! IMO they’re mistaken but it’s hardly a hanging offense. ;^)
BTW, regarding your point about the sheep and the goats and that only applying to the final judgment, it would appear you’re overlooking some of Christ’s other remarks about “His” sheep:
26 “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.” (Matt. 15)
His sheep are scarcely going to wait to hear His voice at the judgment, Todd. When do His sheep hear His voice? Now!
Really, the “you do not believe because you are not of My sheep” clearly implies that only sheep believe, therefore if someone believes in Christ…the Christ Who Is, not a Christ-To-Me mock-up…that someone is a sheep.
So if the FV is teaching that there are believers who fall away and are lost due to not persevering (because that particular grace wasn’t given to them), it plays wiley-beguiled with Matthew 25, for that’d be having Christ sending sheep to hell, and according to Him, sheep don’t go to hell.
So they’d have to be goats. Except goats don’t believe….only His sheep believe, per “you do not believe for you are not of My sheep.”
Not to mention, in John 21 Christ instructs John to “Tend My sheep”, meaning sheephood is of paramount importance in the here and now, not just at the judgment.
david said,
January 4, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Anne,
I might be missing something here, but I am not aware of any of the so-called FV ministers espousing anything other than definite-limited atonement. But perhaps I missed a post or other reference that shows that such would at least be implied.
Thanks.
Anne Ivy said,
January 4, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I’m not aware of it, either, except that to have Christ dying for anyone in hell pretty much takes a tire iron to the knees of definite atonement.
So you’re right…they don’t officially deny definite atonement but they should, for their doctrinal distinctives don’t align with it at all.
Unless someone can demonstrate how Christ’s dying for someone in hell does square with the traditional, orthodox definition of definite atonement.
I’m not too old a dog to learn new tricks. Maybe I’m missing something.
david said,
January 4, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Anne wrote,
“Unless someone can demonstrate how Christ’s dying for someone in hell does square with the traditional, orthodox definition of definite atonement.”
And you would be absolutely right. But in what way is anyone advocating that Christ died for the non-elect? Sorry, perhaps I am just not following this line of thought too well. Are *you* saying that FV proponents have explicitly or implicitly denied definite atonement?
Help me out here!
Thanks,
DC
Anne Ivy said,
January 4, 2007 at 11:05 pm
“Included in His decree, however, is that some persons, not destined for final salvation, will be drawn to Christ and His people only for a time. These, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ’s cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament.” (Auburn Avenue Position Paper on Covenant, Baptism, etc….either the original or the revised version, this segment’s the same in both)
Now perhaps we’re reading it quite differently - amazing how often people do that, isn’t it? - but when I read “purchased for them by Christ’s cross” I’m at a loss as to how that’d mean anything other than Him dying for them.
Presumably you’ve an alternate interpretation, though? I’m all ears!
David McCrory said,
January 4, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Todd, I would not agree with #8 as Anne quotes it from the AAPC
david said,
January 5, 2007 at 12:11 am
Anne,
Perhaps. But you are correct to note that it could be read differently. And, perhaps because I would have read it believing that the author has strong convictions with regard to the canons of Dordt, I would have taken it to mean that any and all blessings given to us arise from the love of God shown to us ultimately in and by the Cross, and that specific blessings in the Church, and therefore enjoyed by all of her members were bestowed because of the Cross as well. God gives blessings of his love and mercy in a very general sense of course to all his creatures. he gives special, further blessings within the covenant community, and yet further blessing still to those chosen before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him. And I would further note, as I mentioned in a previous post, that Calvin may well prove helpful here. The blessings/gifts cannot be separated from the Savior/Giver. Even the non-elect church member enjoys the benefits of Christ’s work as it is communicated to the Church by the Spirit (by whom Christ is present in the Church), though not in the same way or degree that elect members receive and enjoy those blessings - and some blessings not at all! Thus, and this is a huge qualifier, with regard to the matter of atonement for sin, that specific blessing of Christ’s death cannot be bestowed on any one other that elect persons (’elect’ here in the usual, ordo sense of the term). False assurance may be experienced by the non-elect, but this self-deception will become evident in time. Some men’s sins are evident and some men’s sin follow after them. And I would concur with those who do not think it wise to use phraseology like ‘applied to them by the Holy Spirit’, etc. in the context under discussion. The reason for this is clear enough: the confessional langauge of discourse is known and established; it is sufficient to speak of ‘common operations of the Spirit’ in such cases rather than employing the far more potent (and pregnant!) language of the work of Christ on the Cross applied by the Spirit to a person. That can lead to uncertainty and perhaps even confusion, especially when it is confessional categories that are under discussion.
Having been in on numerous presbytery floor exams it would not be unusual for a minister (or candidate) to amplify or clarify a statement. no doubt the statement above would call for such a follow-up.
I appreciate you publishing the comment in question, as that greatly aids me in understanding your concern.
Best regards,
DC
“The Captain is responsible not only for his boat but for his wake as well.”
Anne said,
January 5, 2007 at 12:46 am
“Even the non-elect church member enjoys the benefits of Christ’s work as it is communicated to the Church by the Spirit (by whom Christ is present in the Church), though not in the same way or degree that elect members receive and enjoy those blessings - and some blessings not at all!”
This seems reasonable, dear sir. No quarrel with it the way you’ve put it at all. ;^)
I’ve a couple of diaphamous thoughts swirling around, but it’s late so I’ll sleep on ‘em and see if, one, I remember them and if so then, two, they bear up under the light of day.
Astounding how often thoughts that seem positively inspired and brilliant in the wee hours look anything but at 9:15 a.m.
Y’all sleep well, gentlemen.
pduggie said,
January 5, 2007 at 8:57 am
“Unless someone can demonstrate how Christ’s dying for someone in hell does square with the traditional, orthodox definition of definite atonement.”
Christ died for the hellbound is totally orthodox.
pduggie said,
January 5, 2007 at 9:00 am
In reply to 66:
Murray writes, “even the non-elect are embraced in the design of atonement in respect of those blessings falling short of salvation which they enjoy in this life…it would not be improper to say that, in respect of what is entailed for the non-elect, Christ died for them” (Free Offer of the Gospel)
Anne Ivy said,
January 5, 2007 at 9:04 am
I’d be most interested to hear a definition of definite atonement that allows for those for whom Christ died to be in hell.
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of one. But then I’m only half-way through my second cup of coffee, so maybe that’s why.
Todd said,
January 5, 2007 at 9:29 am
The Murray quotation in #57 is his attempt to explore the ways in which Christ’s death benefits the non-elect. If you don’t like the last sentence, no problem. But if Murray’s right in the rest of the paragraph, then your son’s exposure to the gospel really is a blessing purchased by the cross. There’s no threat to limited atonement, as Murray goes on to make clear in the rest of his essay.
Anne Ivy said,
January 5, 2007 at 10:45 am
Thoughts after a few more readings of the AAPC Position Paper (REVISED)…
Something I dislike and with which I disagree about it is how it never manages to forthrightly and unequivocally state the single most significant thing about “non-elect covenant members”, which is that eventually they all wind up burning in hell, suffering eternal torment.
Certainly Christ Himself did not take a happy-clappy, “gosh golly gee, so long as you’re in the covenant, everthing’s just swell” attitude, such as the FV tends to do. He’d be rather grim and depressing, instead warning “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” That cheery warning wasn’t directed to those outside the covenant, but to His disciples. It’d be better to hack off one’s hand or pluck out one’s eye rather than be cast into hell, He said.
As for advising people to rest in their covenant membership, Christ warned, “do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.” IOW, “You’re in the current covenant because you have Abraham for your father? Well, that and five bucks’ll get you a latte.”
I find offensive the implication that as long as someone is in the covenant everything’s ducky, for just look at all the keen prizes (”truly brought to Christ, united to Him in the Church by baptism and receive various gracious operations of the Holy Spirit. Corporately, they are part of the chosen, redeemed, Spirit-indwelt people”), while doggedly ignoring the irrefutable fact that if that someone’s not elect, he’s doomed to damnation.
The closest the position paper comes to acknowledging covenant members might still find themselves damned for all eternity is through the use of weak phrases such as “not share in the eschatological salvation of Christ”, “be lost”, “hopes have perished”, though there is one “bring greater condemnation upon themselves”. That’s as strong as the paper gets, in stark contrast to Christ’s blunt, unvarnished language.
“No one chosen to eternal salvation can be lost, and no non-elect person can attain eternal salvation.”
“Christ is present in His Church by His Spirit to see to it that all His elect ones are brought to faith in Him.”
“Baptism marks them out as God’s elect people, a status they maintain so long as they persevere in faithfulness…. Those who take their eyes off Christ in unbelief, who desert the Church where His presence is found, will find that their false hopes and carnal presumptions have perished (WCF 18.1), having made a shipwreck of their faith and proven themselves to have received the grace of God in vain.”
Y’know, no wonder the FV gets in trouble if this is the sort of imprecise writing used to explain it. The first sentence (”No one chosen..”), using standard rules of grammar, clearly equates “elect” with “chosen to eternal salvation.” The sentence is written so as to contrast the first phrase with the second. Yet in other sentences in the same paper ‘elect’ does NOT mean “chosen to eternal salvation.” Mercy Maud! Do they want to be understood or not? No wonder FV’ers find themselves constantly complaining they are misunderstood, with confusing stuff like this representing their views. Very poorly written, indeed. Maybe they could start using color coding to alert the reader as to which “elect” they mean? Green for “destined for eternal salvation” and red for “don’t look for them at the resurrection feast”, perhaps? Then there’s the assertion that Christ’s Spirit is present in His Church to “see to it that all His elect ones are brought to faith in Him”, yet a certain number of those same elect ones, who “have received the grace of God”, have received it “in vain”?
Well, so much for irresistible grace, as it hardly fits with Christ’s stirring declaration of “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.” (John 10:27-2
What a pity Christ isn’t really capable of “see[ing] to it that all His elect one are brought to faith in Him.”
Unless the “faith” is of the infamous, perseverance-lacking variety, I suppose. Frankly, the vision of Christ working to see that all His elect are brought to faith in Him though not providing each of them with the grace of perseverance, is scarcely a vision to gladden the heart. “[G]ospel-good news-through and through”?
Hardly.
Todd said,
January 5, 2007 at 10:58 am
“Something I dislike and with which I disagree about it is how it never manages to forthrightly and unequivocally state the single most significant thing about “non-elect covenant members”, which is that eventually they all wind up burning in hell, suffering eternal torment.”
In a controversy like this one, how necessary is it to emphasize what is universally agreed on?
“As for advising people to rest in their covenant membership,”
Not quite a direct quote!
“Certainly Christ Himself did not take a happy-clappy, “gosh golly gee, so long as you’re in the covenant, everthing’s just swell” attitude, such as the FV tends to do.”
This is a pretty severe misrepresentation, Anne. The FV guys are clear that the warnings of the covenant are real.
“The first sentence (”No one chosen..”), using standard rules of grammar, clearly equates “elect” with “chosen to eternal salvation.” The sentence is written so as to contrast the first phrase with the second. Yet in other sentences in the same paper ‘elect’ does NOT mean “chosen to eternal salvation.”
Which sentence are you talking about?
Anne Ivy said,
January 5, 2007 at 12:02 pm
It needs to be emphasized because Christ emphasized it, that’s why. It needs to be emphasized because to NOT emphasize it is to make a statement, whether intended or not. It must never be overlooked that what one does not include can speak louder than what one does. Softening the language of damnation while simultaneously emphasizing the benefits of the covenant is neither wise, charitable, nor prudent.
=======
Resting in covenant membership came from this:
“All covenant members are invited to attain to a full and robust confidence that they are God’s eternally elect ones. Starting with their baptisms, they have every reason to believe God loves them and desires their eternal salvation.”
It’s fascinating how what is given with one hand - that “God loves them and desires their eternal salvation” - is removed with the other hand - “God, however, mysteriously has chosen to draw some into the covenant community who are not elect unto eternal salvation.”
Honestly, that’s about as neat an example of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds as I’ve seen in ages.
This is why traditional Protestant doctrine says the covenant is composed of those who have been elect unto eternal life, as that does not have God loving someone and desiring their eternal salvation while providing most of the grace necessary for that to occur, but omitting a key grace, that of perseverance.
If I live to be a hundred and fifty-eight years old I’ll never understand how it’s presumably an improvement to say God gives some people all the grace needed to be saved to glory, He gives some people none of the grace needed to be saved to glory, but then He gives some poor schnooks just enough grace to allow them to reasonably believe they’re saved to glory but not enough to ensure it happens.
Todd, really….this is an improvement? This is good news? HOW? I just wish that someone could ever explain HOW this is good.
=========
And I didn’t misrepresent what they said. I said that was the attitude that comes across due to what they said. Look, if I write something and while some people think it was fine, others complain that I was snippy, I’m going to suspect that something about what I wrote is striking people as snippy. If it’s just one person, well, there may be nothing to it, but if quite a few perceive the same attitude in my post, the odds are my post needs to be rewritten.
Same thing if people tell me I said [fill in the blank] when I surely didn’t intend to say [fill in the blank]. One or two people, okay…maybe they’re dyslexic or something and mentally misread me, but if a veritable stream of people read what I wrote and come away convinced I said [fill in the blank], I’m gonna get a clue and realize that never mind what I intended to say, it obviously didn’t come out right.
Hammering hard on the wonderful benefits of being in the covenant while simultaneously using weak language about damnation isn’t sending a message the FV wants to send, I don’t think.
I swear, it’s unusual to run across a bunch of people so determined that it’s the readers’ responsibility to decipher what they intended to say, rather than what they actually did say.
=======
The sentence that starts with “No one chosen…”, of course: “No one chosen to eternal salvation can be lost, and no non-elect person can attain eternal salvation.”
Were I teaching a writing class this would be an excellent example of obscurity. The FV emphasizes that “elect” doesn’t always mean “elect unto salvation” as is the traditional meaning, but then Wilkins writes this. Amazing.
Would you like me to diagram it for you? I’m not being snippy or anything…I’m quite serious. Maybe if I took it apart as we used to do in English grammar classes it’d help you see what’s wrong with it, and how it leads to confusion based upon how “elect” is used elsewhere in the paper.
David Gadbois said,
January 5, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Anne, a few questions/points:
1. Notice how silly it is to even have to have a revised statement? Telling, no? At best, this is incompetence. Having to clarify a clarification is what it is. But it is not obvious to me that the “revision” represents a change in theology of the authors so much as the authors trying to cover their hides. I bet on the latter, don’t you?
2. Also notice that the perseverence of the elect is contingent on persevering in the covenant. But isn’t it conceivable that someone could persevere in the covenant, without overt apostacy or excommunication, and still have false faith and be damned? This Statement doesn’t seem to think so. That’s why it is a recipe for nominalism - just add water!
3. Keep preaching it, sister.
pduggie said,
January 5, 2007 at 1:25 pm
77.1 That’s why there are complaints running around about charity in this discussion. Assuming the worst, and such.
77.2 also uncharitable. Has Wilkins said that’s what he thinks?
Also, you have to recall the context for the statement. A bunch of people freaked out about the AAPC conference, and Wilkins thought *something* should be put up in response. Then after discussion, he revised it.
FV is not, in respect to the statement put on the AAPC site, a mvoement.
Anne Ivy said,
January 5, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Oh, now, I’ve had to do a spot of revising myself at times when it’s been borne in upon me that what I’d written needed to be punched up, or smoothed out, or toned down, or otherwise amended for clarity or charity. ;^)
Actually, I think it’s awfully kind of Pastor Wilkins to keep both versions available (even though Google, darn it, automatically brings up the first one) for comparison. An awful lot of people wouldn’t do that, y’know, so kudos to him for that.
I’ve got friends who are themselves friends of his and go down for the annual clambake at AAPC occasionally, and by all accounts, he’s a very nice man, indeed.
[cough, cough] His writing skills could stand a little improvement, admittedly, but so can the writing skills of a lot of people. I do wish it were easier to tell if it’s not lucidly written through inadvertence or if it is not lucidly written on purpose. I’m thinking the former, since I know I could really muddy it up more than it is were I to put my mind to it. IOW, if the intent were to fool anyone, it isn’t working especially well, so the odds are the writer was - without realizing it - mentally filling in blanks as he wrote, unaware of how confusing it is for those who are reading it cold.
I’ve got a lamentable tendency to do that myself! :^( I know what I mean…why the deuce don’t you? ;^)
You’re quite right about the perseverance angle. It’s incredibly muddling, as I don’t believe Pastor Wilkins holds to any form of works righteousness, much as the position paper reads as if it’s what’s being promoted. And as you say, the fear is that someone remains in the covenant through laziness or habit or because everyone else in their family is in it, not out of personal conviction, winding up surprised to find themselves barred from glory and hearing “I never knew you.”
In fact, that’s one of the biggest drawbacks, IMO. I’ve heard parents say, in regard to their older children, “Well, they aren’t doing anything to cause me to think they’ve rejected Christ.”
Whoa. There’s a ringing endorsement. That’s it? Just not actively repudiate Christ and you’re bound for glory?
[grimly] If that’s not a tacit encouragement for helping someone be deceived as to their faith status, I don’t know what is.
greenbaggins said,
January 5, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Anne, I’m enjoying your comments immensely, not only because I agree with the vast majority of what you say, but also because you have a very punchy, vivid way of saying it. Keep it up!
Thomas Twitchell said,
January 5, 2007 at 2:56 pm
pduggie said,
“Can you tell when you’re having merely external communion with another professing Christian? Do you let them know?”
There are times when I can. The testimony of the Word of God shared in common union of the Spirit at times confirms that I am in internal communion with others, “When two or more of you (my disciples) are gathered in my name, there I am in your midst). This is not a super spiritualized reality, but the bare truth of the Truth that spoke it. I do not depend upon either my perceptions internally or externally for final judgement, but I believe in the gift of discernment, don’t you?
I am a member of an Arminian SBC congregation and as far as I know I was the first to embrace the Reformed teachings there. I am very young in it. I know this, when our chuch offers the Lord’s Supper there are those that I know do not understand even the beginnings of what it means. I know this because I have interacted with them in study and ministry. I am currently teaching my pastor and our senior deacon what I know now to be the truth. I am in external communion with them, as a covenant member of our church but for now only the deacon, could I say that I know we have communion in the New Covenant which is established in truth. But, it is only external in many aspects, and with my pastor, though I beleive he is a member of the body of Christ, by his testimony, I am not at all assured. As Paul, I must watch over this until Christ is formed in them both.
There will always remain the question of the one who holds true confession and is a liar. And, by the grace of God, in due time I hope that everything will be exposed. I trust that God is true to his word. The warnings in Revelation concerning the churches responsibility to police its own is dire. My prayer is that not only will we reform our theology before our candlestick is removed, but that with it, as it should be, will come the means of judicial responsibility. For it is not just doctrine proper that is in question in Revelation but tolerance of the abuse of it and of the liberty we have in Christ. That is after all what this thread is about, is it not?
This thread is predicated upon the rightful application of the the revelation of scripture in determining if any error exists, and upon its discovery to purge out the leaven. Two things stand out.
First is the failure of language and our failure to use it in clear meaningful ways to convey the thoughts we have about Scripture. It is the curse of “Babel,” I suppose. But, it is a curse that we have got to deal with.
The second is the failure to take into consideration that the nature of the Bible is revelatory, not mechanical. For what ever reason language equivalents have been extended to encompass spiritual equivalents. This is mostly seen in Todd’s refusal to make a clear distinction in the application of spiritual types that are expressed by words that have technical meanings in languages of men but do not necessarily mean the same in Scipture. One of the most obvious example of this is Paul’s use of Israel. To us in our limited understanding to say that not all of Israel is Israel is nonsense. To say that Abraham’s seed is not his children, or that Jerusalem is not Jerusalem and so on, or that the forensic nature of justification means that in regard to the believer the sin they sinned they have never sinned, but in regard to God the sin of man will never pass from his knowledge, does not fit into neat categories of logic.
The fact is all the church is not the church which is captured in the ideas of visible and invisible just as the Jurusalem below is not the Jerusalem above and yet there is only one Jerusalem, one seed yet many children, One Holy and many vessels in a great holy house and only some are holy ones. Todd’s failure, as well as that of the FV is not to draw clear enough distinctions. They seem not to understand the common grace that is given through the Lord’s dominion has at the same time common effect on all men, within and without the visible church and at the same time it can be special grace with particular effect to those of the invisible. This failure eventuates in confusing the internal graces of salvation that are given only to the elect with the common external ordinances that are administered within the commision of the church.
Enough said.
Just joking!
So, yes I can at times tell when I am having external communion, I do it all the time, but with some there is communion within because the same Spirit dwells in all those who are his. And, at times it is perceptable. This is not strange to Scripture. It was not just the testimony of Paul that the Scripture testified that we are gathered about by a great cloud of witnesses. And, even though he was unable to tell whether in the spirit or in body that he was lifted up, he testified of it as true experience. John said the same and further testified that the Spirit testifies with our spirits that we are the children of God. The sense is plural. So I do not doubt that my experiences are real, just as a do not doubt that my experience of salvation was real, though I do not base the truth of my experiences soley on themselves, because we have been given a threefold testimony, inward by the Spirit, externally by the Word, and communally through the church, so that all things are established by them. Each in turn gives comfort, support and grace in perserverance.
It is the first of these that is in question in the FV controversy. That is, with out the life of the Spirit in the believer, the word of faith is dead and community is shattered when the church tolerates the idea that dead faith is as good in its essential nature or efficacy as a living one. Or, that a dead faith only waits upon the communicant to act on it. We find Jesus rebuking those who had believed (pisteuo) on him and calling them children of the devil. It is obvious that there is a distinction spiritually that is made that the mechanical meaning of the language cannot convey, John 8.31-47. It is also obvious that those who discipline themselves, to set themselves free, are illegitate son’s though they are son’s externally (these were keepers of the law), but if we are disciplined by the Father through the Word of God, then we are true son’s, and if the Son sets us free we are free indeed. This grace of true “abiding” is only given to those to whom the Son gives it. All those branches that are cut off, though they persist for a season, as these “temporal” believers did, never were part of the true vine, period. “He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God”
greenbaggins said,
January 5, 2007 at 3:06 pm
BOQ This failure eventuates in confusing the internal graces of salvation that are given only to the elect with the common external ordinances that are administered within the commision of the church. EOQ
This is extremely clear and to the point, Thomas. Thanks.
Gabe Martini said,
May 7, 2007 at 10:05 pm
What a bunch of gnostics.
Andrew Malloy said,
May 8, 2007 at 7:29 am
Re: 83
That sounds FVish to say.