Wilkins’s exam, part 7

January 6, 2007 at 5:31 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy)

Now we get to the doctrine of perseverance (pp. 12-17).

First problem is the rhetoric on page 13: “It seems to me that the Presbytery’s argument would also have to be made against Paul, Peter, and Jesus as well since all apply the language of salvation to those whom they say are in danger ultimately of falling short of the grace of God.” He then lists the following passages in his defense: 1 Cor 10:4-5, Heb 6:4ff, 10:29, 12:22ff, 2 Peter 1:9, 2:1, 20, and Rev 3:5, 22:19. He hasn’t proved in the remotest that his exegesis of these passages supports the weight that he us putting on them. I wish to point out just a few problems with his exegesis: Rev 3:5 does not say that it is even theoretically possible for someone’s name to be removed from the book of life. This is merely an assurance that “by no means” will the name be removed. It is extra assurance for the believer. Furthermore, there isn’t even a hint in this verse of describing “those who fail to persevere.” That category of people is not in view at all. Rather it is the one who conquers.

And on 22:19, all that is necessary is to quote Beale’s commentary on the passage: “Does v 19 refer to loss of a salvation previously possessed or to a denial of final salvific reward for thos who have claimed outwardly to be Christians but have never had true faith? The latter is most plausible because the repeated characteristic highlighted in the closing portion of the book is not that of genuine believers losing their redeemed status but of the counterfeit, double-dealing nature of people in the Christian community who will not receive the final reward” (pg. 1153). And on the other passages, I have already given rather extensive commentary.

He reveals his historical ignorance on the Reformed view of justification when he says, “Nearly every Presbyterian and evangelical minister understands the word ‘justification’ differently depending upon its context and he does so without feeling compelled to charge Paul or James with being confusing in their terminology!” Now, the word “to justify” is used in a different sense in Paul from James. But to imply, as Wilkins does, that every Presbyterian minister has his own definition of justification is absurd. It certainly does not jibe with what Buchanan says on the doctrine: “Few things in the history of the Church are more remarkable than the entire unanimity of the Reformers on the subject of a sinner’s Justification before God.” You know, it wouldn’t even matter whether the Reformers were unanimous on justification. What we do have is the WCF’s definition.

What he says later on down the page is very facile: “If the Presbytery disagrees with my understanding they should simply say so and show where I am wrong. But to pretend that I am utilizing words with certain stipulated definitions when I have explicitly said I am not doing so, is simply misleading. I affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith and its statements as true and the statements made in my article in no way require a rejection of these truths.” Several things need to be pointed out here. First of all, the Presbytery obviously knows what Wilkins is saying about the non-elect members of the covenant. The Memorial explicitly states “In Wilkins’s teaching, all church members share all the benefits of union with Christ, but only provisionally.” Wilkins then states that he was talking about what is true of all members of the church. Is this not the same group of people being discussed? Was not the Presbytery correctly stating what Wilkins was talking about? What has happened is what Rick Phillips is talking about: Wilkins is pitting the WCF against Scripture.

Secondly, the Memorial has in detail pointed out not only where Wilkins goes wrong, but the relevant sections of the WCF that contradict Wilkins’s teaching.

Thirdly, when Wilkins uses language against the WCF, such as “our understanding of salvation from a systematic (Westminsterian) theology standpoint has difficulty accommodating these passages…better way to deal with these statements,” it is facile for him to say that his statement about his upholding the standards should be enough all by itself. Again, the issue is not whether he claims to uphold the Standards, but whether his theology actually does.

25 Comments

  1. Anne Ivy said,

    January 6, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    It’s really peculiar how Pastor Wilkins has, between the Position Paper (Revised) and his examination responses (very courteous of him to generously make them readily available, BTW), tried to weaken assurance while simultaneously insisting the changes amount to “gospel-good news-through and through.”

    Mind, I quite understand that from the LORD’s viewpoint assurance hasn’t changed. If He provides someone with the full complement of grace, including perseverance, then persevere they will. If He does not provide them with the full complement of grace, they won’t.

    But it’s frightfully unnerving from our POV, since according to Pastor Wilkins we can really profess Christ….really repent of our sins….really acknowledge Jesus as LORD of LORD and King of Kings, but we have no assurance we will continue to do so, i.e. that if we backslide, He will certainly grab us and haul us back to Him.

    Because Christian A and Christian B can both have repented and professed faith, but if perseverance was withheld from one of them, that one will eventually fall away (as we have no hope of persevering without His sustaining grace) to eternal damnation.

    As an ex-RC, the promise that if I am His, He will never let me go, has sustained me through some ticklish, troubling times. The possibility that I’m not deceived in my faith…it’s real….but though I possess a real faith due to the working of the Holy Spirit there is no assurance the Holy Spirit will continue the good work He began, is hideous. Hideous.

    [helplessly] How can anyone find this to be good news?

  2. greenbaggins said,

    January 6, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    Anne, the RCC said at the time of the Reformation (Cardinal Bellarmine, to be precise) that the foremost sin of the Reformation was their doctrine of assurance. I think that the FV is in effect saying the same thing. By putting our assurance all into the baptism sphere of things (since when did baptism offer the surefire guarantee against apostasy?), they have taken away the inward evidences of assurance, which are often the strongest source of assurance. I do not deny that baptism is *one* of the means of grace, and therefore of assurance. But our assurance is based on many things. That is what is at stake, and you have (as usual) put your finger precisely on the problem.

  3. Todd said,

    January 6, 2007 at 9:18 pm

    “By putting our assurance all into the baptism sphere of things (since when did baptism offer the surefire guarantee against apostasy?), they have taken away the inward evidences of assurance, which are often the strongest source of assurance.”

    All? Surefire guarantee? This doesn’t reflect the view of any FV writer. If I’m wrong, I’ll ask, predictably, for some documentation that reflects the language you’ve used here. You’re back in your office now, right?

  4. Anne Ivy said,

    January 6, 2007 at 10:15 pm

    However, the “objective covenant” angle is very important to a friend of mine who is a staunch FV adherent. It was rather interesting…IMO…how the two of us came to grasp why we were viewing the same thing so differently.

    We were on a forum and discussing, oh, something or other, when suddenly the light went on for both of us. When I doubt, as I sadly and occasionally do, my doubts tend to be of the “Did all this really happen?” sort. The whole Triune God/redemption story will sometimes hit me as very unlikely. A veritable tsunami of doubt will rise up and almost swamp me.

    Now understand, I don’t fret about MY place in the redemption story, assuming the redemption story is true. Christ came to save sinners, and that’s me. Upon Him and His cross and His righteousness I rest.

    My friend, OTOH, never has any doubts whatsoever about the existance of God and the redemption story…never!

    I’m as envious as green cheese, trust me when I tell you this.

    However, what she does doubt is HER place in it. She tends to be troubled by doubts that she, personally, is saved. This being so, the “objective” stuff such as “look to your baptism” truly scratches where she’s itching, if you see what I mean.

    For me, though, it’s useless and no help at all. What’s the point of resting on one’s baptism if God isn’t there?

    Anyway, it was a real epiphany (pun due to the date) for the two of us, helping us understand where the other’s coming from.

    So to be fair, there are people for whom the “objective” angle is extraordinarily comforting. Baptized? Check! Faithful attender of church? Check! Therefore, walking with God? Check!

    Okay, you’re good to go. Just keep doing what you’re doing and you’ll be fine.

    Mind, I can understand the attraction myself, being a checklist sort of person, and were it so I wouldn’t have to fret about my mother, who is certainly baptized and a regular attender of church.

    Of course, the Christ she professes to worship bears no resemblence whatever to the Christ of the Bible (a sadly outmoded book to her mind, her being a devout ECUSA member who has no problem with the direction her denomination is going), but still…using “objective covenant” standards, she should be alright.

    As I said, it’d certainly be a comforting thing for me to believe in her case. Unfortunately, divine truth cannot be determined based upon what I feel about it.

    The only thing I can figure is that the “limited grace” doctrine (everything received except the grace of perseverance) works as a counterbalance to the almost easy-believism of the “objective covenant” doctrine, intended to keep everyone on their spiritual toes.

    If one does NOT hold to the “objective covenant” POV, however, the “limited grace” doctrine has nothing to counterbalance it, making it seem perfectly ghastly.

    I guess it’s meant to be a package deal. ;^)

  5. pduggie said,

    January 7, 2007 at 8:56 pm

    Can you point me to some journals of puritans or something where they write of the inward evidences that they took assurances from? I’d like to see how that works.

    I sometimes wonder if our anti-charismatic rationalism has produced the FV. Inward assurances sound like some kind of private revelation, and we’ve all polemicized against those so much that undigested bits of beef are more credible than workings of the Spirit

  6. pduggie said,

    January 7, 2007 at 8:58 pm

    “As an ex-RC, the promise that if I am His, He will never let me go, has sustained me through some ticklish, troubling times.”

    The question is: can we hear that promise in baptism. I think we have to.

  7. Anne said,

    January 7, 2007 at 10:11 pm

    Considering the numerous unsaved, even Christ-rejecting, baptized people I know (several of whom are family, including one adult son), I disagree with you rather strenuously.

    If everyone baptized were saved, then there’d be a point to relying upon it. Or even the overwhelming majority of those baptized.

    Since this is so clearly not the case, though, it seems like a dandy encouragement to false security and self-deception, to rely heavily upon a circumstantial sign of election.

    Mind, now! Such circumstantial signs are useful and beneficial - at least temporally - but are not intended to be too weight-bearing. They’re pointers, for sure, indicating the LORD most definitely knows the baptized person is there, if you see what I mean.

    It’s a reason for hope rather than firm assurance, ISTM.

  8. greenbaggins said,

    January 8, 2007 at 10:59 am

    I think that what is so important to remember about baptism is that it is only a means (not *the* means) of assurance if the sign is connected with the thing signified in an individual’s life. Baptism signifies cleansing with Christ’s blood. *If we have then been cleansed by Christ’s blood,* being regenerated by the Holy Spirit, having thus received the thing signified, then baptism becomes a means of assurance. What you’re really getting at, Anne, (I think), is that if the baptism is not improved in this way, then the baptism becomes a means of cursing, not of blessing.

  9. Anne Ivy said,

    January 8, 2007 at 11:11 am

    Right. That’s the flip side of the circumstantial blessings….they are blessings if the recipients claim and clasp them, but will turn around and work as curses if the recipients reject and despise them.

  10. markhorne said,

    January 8, 2007 at 11:12 am

    “if the baptism is not improved in this way, then the baptism becomes a means of cursing, not of blessing.”

    In what way? The WLC spells it out. I don’t see your claims listed as the way which baptism is improved. In fact, you say anything about what a baptized person should do to improve his baptism. What am I missing?

    If I’m reading you right (and I’m more than willing to be shown that I’m not!) then you have effectively altared the answer to question 167 of the Westminster Larger Catechism.

  11. markhorne said,

    January 8, 2007 at 11:13 am

    BTW, apart from my qualm above, I think this statement, “if the baptism is not improved in this way, then the baptism becomes a means of cursing, not of blessing.” is excellent.

  12. greenbaggins said,

    January 8, 2007 at 11:18 am

    Well, I think you’re reading me right, Mark, in one sense. I would say in answer to this that even question 167 has God’s work involved very closely in the improvement of baptism. One can see this in the phrases “the privileges conferred and sealed thereby…the grace of baptism…blessings sealed to us in that sacrament, quickening of grace (in my opinion, the most important phrase)…baptized by the same Spirit into one body.” These phrases tell us what God is doing in the improvement of our baptism. Surely the quickening of grace refers to regeneration, does it not? In which case we can also say that God improves our baptism when we are quickened by grace. Of course, in the improvement of baptism (which the question defines in a rather broad manner: I mean that there are many things listed in the answer to that question) we also play a part. We are not automatons, but are active in that (though not, of course, in regeneration). It is difficult to say everything that needs to be said on a question like this, but I think that’s a start.

  13. pduggie said,

    January 8, 2007 at 11:18 am

    “Right. That’s the flip side of the circumstantial blessings….they are blessings if the recipients claim and clasp them,”

    But how can that work if baptism does not contain a gospel promise?

    “Since baptized people are not all saved, baptism can give me no particular promise that I am saved. But I will still claim and grasp the non-promise offered in baptism”

    Lane: “a means (not *the* means) of assurance if the sign is connected with the thing signified in an individual’s life.” right! Without faith in the promise contained in baptism, it can’t assure. But someone with faith in the promise contained in baptism has, by defintion, a saving faith, so he does in fact have something to be assured about.

    That doesnt’ make any sense. Is that what you’re saying?

  14. greenbaggins said,

    January 8, 2007 at 11:27 am

    The faith is not directed toward the promise contained in baptism, but toward Jesus Christ. The distinction is perhaps small, but crucial, I think. Baptism puts one in a position of probation. If the sign is connected to the thing signified in an person’s life, then that person is saved by faith alone through Christ alone by grace alone. The baptism would then be something visible to help our weak faith along. That is its purpose, as I see it. But the faith is pointed to Christ, not toward baptism. That is, our faith is pointed toward the thing signified (which is our burial and resurrection with *Christ*), not so much toward the sign. If in a person’s life, the sign and the thing signified are thus joined, then baptism becomes a means of assurance, being a sign and seal of what he possesses by faith in Jesus Christ.

  15. pduggie said,

    January 8, 2007 at 11:40 am

    The promise is contained in baptism because the baptism signifies the promise.

    “this baptism is a sign and seal that I have been united with Christ in his death and ressurection” It communicates that to me, and I believe what is communicated to me by that baptism, therefore I am assured, since I’m beliveing that I have died and been raised with Christ, which is what baptism tells me.

  16. Anne Ivy said,

    January 8, 2007 at 11:49 am

    God promises that all who turn to Him in repentance and faith will be saved.

    Seems like a good promise to me, and one upon which I totally rely.

    This might, BTW, be a good place for me to point out I’m not Presbyterian; I came to faith in Christ at a non-denominational Bible church. It’s credo while I’m what I call a mild-paedo, for ISTM quite a few Presbys tend to load the physical rite of baptism down with more than I believe it’s meant to bear.

    So “the WCF says!” isn’t the knock-out-punch for me it is for most of y’all. ;^)

  17. David Gadbois said,

    January 8, 2007 at 2:49 pm

    ” I believe what is communicated to me by that baptism, therefore I am assured, since I’m beliveing that I have died and been raised with Christ, which is what baptism tells me.”

    But the promise contained in baptism is conditional - you have been united with Christ in his death and resurrection IF you have faith. It does not, by itself, contain assurance of salvation for you personally, because it does not tell you whether you have faith or not. This is not complicated.

  18. pduggie said,

    January 8, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    Wow, way to destroy someones assurance, David.

    I never said it did contain assurance “by itself”. When you trust the promises of Christ in baptism for you THEN it provides assurance.

    And baptism is where the promises are made particular. In baptism, the promises are applied to the beleiver. Believing that they are applied in baptism provides assurance.

  19. pduggie said,

    January 8, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    Let me put it this way

    Baptism becomes beneficial to you if you have yourself baptized with the thought that this is according to God’s command and ordinance, as well as in God’s name, in order that you may receive in the water the promised salvation.

  20. David Gadbois said,

    January 8, 2007 at 9:57 pm

    “Baptism becomes beneficial to you if you have yourself baptized with the thought that this is according to God’s command and ordinance, as well as in God’s name, in order that you may receive in the water the promised salvation.”

    No, we ought not let anyone (adult) desiring baptism come forward unless they are convinced that they already have the promised salvation by faith.

  21. Anne Ivy said,

    January 9, 2007 at 8:28 am

    I was going to say….!

    Surely when an adult is baptized it is based upon “presumptive regeneration” due to the new convert to the faith having made a credible profession of faith?

    If the baptismal candidate dies between the time he turns in faith to Christ and His finished work on the cross and the service in which he is scheduled to be baptized, you don’t believe he still goes to hell because he isn’t saved yet, I trust?

  22. Joshua W.D. Smith said,

    January 9, 2007 at 6:06 pm

    On an exegetical note: Rev. 3:5 seems logically to entail that the one who does not overcome does have his name blotted out, especially given the parallel in 5b to Matt. 10:32, where the converse is explicit in v. 33. Also notice the curse in Rev. 22:19: “God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, and from the Holy City…” So, there was a share, a place in the Book and the City, and it can be taken away. Exegetically.

  23. markhorne said,

    January 9, 2007 at 11:18 pm

    What about admission into the visible church–the house and family of God out of which there is nor ordinary possibility of salvation? May we baptize someone who doesn’t believe they yet have it and is looking for baptism as God’s promised means of delivering it to him or her personally?

  24. Anne said,

    January 9, 2007 at 11:37 pm

    I’d think so, though it’s not commonly done. The LORD promises He will be found by those who earnestly seek Him, after all. If someone is earnestly seeking the LORD, and anxious to be discipled, I can’t come up with a good reason not to assume it’s because the Holy Spirit is working in him.

    And here I am, not even a pro-FV’er. ;^)

    Very thought provoking question, Mark!

  25. David Gadbois said,

    January 11, 2007 at 3:48 am

    “Rev. 3:5 seems logically to entail that the one who does not overcome does have his name blotted out, especially given the parallel in 5b to Matt. 10:32, where the converse is explicit in v. 33.”

    That is a logical fallacy coupled with an exegetical error (based, I gather, on the NIV). Note the ESV:

    “but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”

    Denies, not disowns.

    And the Textus Receptus rears it’s ugly head here:

    “Rev. 22:19: “God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, and from the Holy City…””

    Actually, modern translations have “part from the Tree of Life”, so this is not the Book of Life we are talking about here.

    “May we baptize someone who doesn’t believe they yet have it and is looking for baptism as God’s promised means of delivering it to him or her personally?”

    IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.

    Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?

    A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him

Post a Comment