Rejoinder to Jonathan Barlow

January 7, 2007 at 3:34 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy)

Many thanks to Todd for directing me to Jonathan Barlow’s critique of Rick Phillips’s critique of Steve Wilkin’s response to the Carolina Presbytery’s critique of Steve Wilkins’s theology. How’s that for back and forth? I would like to add my two cents to Barlow’s critique (or subtract my two cents; whichever way you want to look at it).

As I understand the argument, Barlow distinguishes between a word (how it is used) and a doctrine. He thinks (in essence) that Phillips makes the word-concept fallacy. His first target is that of election. He quotes Phillips’s critique, which says this:

“In response to the citation in the CCP Memorial against TE Wilkins’s
affirmation of the Confession – a citation in which he states that election is
lost by those who profess faith but then fall away – he answers that he
taught this only of the Bible’s teaching: ‘The Presbytery in making this
charge has ignored the context of what I have written and because of this,
has completely missed my point. In the article, this statement comes in
the context of a discussion of how the word ‘elect’ is used in the Biblical
text’ (Answers II.3). His point is that he was merely teaching what the
Bible says about election, in contrast to what the Confession says.”

Then Barlow says this: “Notice that Wilkins does not say that ‘this statement comes in the context of a discussion of how the doctrine of election is handled in the Biblical text.’” Who is supposed to have said this? Phillips? As I read what Barlow wrote here, my strong impression is that Barlow is rephrasing what Phillips says that Wilkins says. In which case Barlow misquoted Phillips. Phillips did not say “doctrine of election,” but simply “what the Bible says about election.” Therefore, Barlow has not proved that Phillips is committing the word-concept fallacy (a fallacy with which he is very familiar, by the way!). At the very least, there would be significant overlap between what the Bible says about election and how the Bible uses the word. After all, how can one find out what the Bible says about election unless one finds out how the Bible uses the word? Is this not proper methodology? Barlow hasn’t proved that Phillips is committing this fallacy.

And so Phillips’s summary sentence is simply incorrect – it is not Wilkins’s point that the Confession and the Bible differ in their teaching about election. It is simply Wilkins’s point, clearly stated, that his comments relate to the way the Bible uses a word as opposed to how the Confession uses a word.

Here we have the (by now) familiar problem of what Wilkins said and what Wilkins meant. Given the lack of clarity that is rampant in all the FV writings, this dichotomy should be evident to many. Barlow has not lessened the problem with his critique here. It is evident that this is the case from what he says here, “the way the Bible uses a word as opposed to how the Confession uses a word.” On the level of words, the WCF does use words in the same way that Scripture uses them. Otherwise, we are going to have to say that the WCF is not exegetical of Scripture as a whole. If the WCF is not exegetical of Scripture as a whole, then its doctrinal formulations are purely and simply wrong. I think, on the contrary, that this is precisely what Phillips does understand.

Phillips claims that if Wilkins makes reference to verse X to establish conclusion Y, and the confession makes reference to verse X to establish conclusion Z, then he implicitly
denies the confession’s formulation Z.

The problem here is in the nature of the conclusions drawn. Phillips’s point is that Wilkins’s teaching (involving the proof-texts) comes to diametrically opposite teachings from the WCF. Phillips is saying that the conclusion of Wilkins and the conclusion of the WCF from those particular texts are diametrically opposite and logically incompatible. The formulation above would be a legitimate critique if conclusions Y and Z were not diametrically opposite. But if only one of those conclusions can be right, then Phillips is correct to use such logic. In effect, then, Phillips is saying that only one of two interpretations of those passages can be right: Wilkins or the WCF. If the WCF is wrong in its exegesis of those passages, then would it not also be wrong in its doctrinal formulations at that point? I realize, of course, that this question involves the assumption that ST and exegesis are mutually informative and compatible, the one with the other. If one does not hold to the said position, then this argument will carry no weight.

Barlow then critiques Phillips for “hold(ing) Wilkins responsible for not viewing subscription to the Confession as a subscription to the implicit exegesis inferred from the proof texts appended to the Confession.” However, this is not what Phillips is doing. Phillips is simply noting that they cannot both be correct in their exegesis, and that if the WCF is wrong in its exegesis, then it is also wrong in its formulation.

A smaller point, but one that bears mentioning here: the levels of discourse that he is talking about cannot be so rigidly separated as he seems to do. Cannot a letter have more technical, precise vocabulary? Could not a Confession have a more discursive style? By driving such a large wedge in-between these levels of discourse, he makes ST and exegesis also to be operating on two completely different levels. I utterly reject this formulation.

66 Comments

Todd said,

January 7, 2007 at 6:19 pm

This line made me laugh: “Therefore, Barlow has not proved that Phillips is committing the word-concept fallacy (a fallacy with which he is very familiar, by the way!).”

Very familiar!
Todd said,

January 7, 2007 at 6:23 pm

“On the level of words, the WCF does use words in the same way that Scripture uses them. Otherwise, we are going to have to say that the WCF is not exegetical of Scripture as a whole.”

But for Hebrews 10:29, you have proposed a meaning/use for the word sanctification that is quite different than the use of that word in the WCF.

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/01/01/hebrews-1029-and-apostasy/
barlow said,

January 7, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Your first point: “Who is supposed to have said this? Phillips?”

I wasn’t saying that Phillips “said” this, only noting that Wilkins *didn’t* say it that way. In other words, Wilkins was talking about the way the word “elect” was used in the Bible, he was not talking about the doctrine of election; I apologize for any infelicities in my mode of expression that may have led to your confusion.

I also think it is not the case that if the WCF uses a passage incorrectly that its formulations would then be wrong. Many times people draw straight lines with crooked sticks. But beyond that, my point was not that the WCF gets a passage wrong, it is simply that there is some reason why the drafters of the proof-texts listed the verses they did and we are not always privvy to why the texts are listed there. Keep in mind the complexity of the situation when thinking of the WCF and its use of scripture. We have:

1. Oral debates at the assembly and the way that scripture plays in those debates.
2. Private writings of the members and persuasive essays that use the scriptures
3. The English Annotations which were a parliament commissioned whole-bible commentary
4. Obvious allusions to scriptural language in the text of the confession
5. The proof-texts themselves and their often subtle and sophisticated relationship to the point that footnotes them.

And so I simply don’t see a reason to pit Wilkins’s exegesis of particular texts against what we might imagine the divines would say about why they footnoted a particular text in a particular clause. And I grant the point that any time the bible uses the word “elect” that the passage is relevant in formulating a “doctrine of election.” Just as most people (Phillips included, I would imagine) grant that both Paul’s and James’s use of the word “justified” are relevant to formulating a doctrine of justification and yet that does not force us to assume that Paul and James are using “justified” in the same way. You might be right that Phillips understands this distinction, but he does not employ that understanding in his paper.

I simply disagree that Wilkins comes to theological conclusions that are opposite those of the Confession on the issue of the doctrine of election. I see Wilkins very clearly saying that he agrees with the theological conclusions of the Confession while also wanting to be able to take note of the way that the Bible uses the word “elect” in a broader way than simply meaning to denote “the fixed number designated from before the foundations of the world.”

As for your final point, I agree that the levels of discourse cannot be so neatly divided, but one point in my favor is that there are many epistles in the Bible, and so the theologian has the task of drawing from a fair amount of material and figuring out how to formulate doctrines that do justice to each biblical writer’s God-given perspective and focus. Another point in my favor is that we heirs of Westminster have a fairly fixed technical vocabulary, and even when doing theology in their epistles, the apostles can’t be expected to use terms the way we do. And that’s why I’m skeptical of the utility of even thinking of the apostles as using “terms” or “defining terms.” They are writing about Jesus and the Gospel in the language available to them, and it is the task of a theologian in the 17th century or now to be sure he or she keeps a methodological safeguard in mind to be sure that words in the Bible are not replaced with “terms” that carry a specific meaning to English speaking theologians.

Hope this helps clarify things a bit, even if you remain unpersuaded by my arguments.

By the way - whose blog is this? I’ve been admiring the pleasing design as I’ve been typing.
barlow said,

January 7, 2007 at 8:22 pm

Someone just told me - you are Lane Keister; I recognize your name from other blog comment discussions.
adam said,

January 8, 2007 at 12:48 am

Lane it seems to me that the key question in this debate is in a confessing church, do our doctrinal standards function as a controlling hermanuetic?

I would think in a denomination where elders voluntarily “receive and adapt the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptires” that that also carrys with it certain expectations about the way we express and practice the faith.
pduggie said,

January 8, 2007 at 9:06 am

Didn’t the PCA already decide that wasn’t the case with respect to 24 hour 6 day creation?
Xon said,

January 8, 2007 at 9:24 am

“Who is supposed to have said this? Phillips? As I read what Barlow wrote here, my strong impression is that Barlow is rephrasing what Phillips says that Wilkins says.”

No, what Barlow is saying is that the only way for that quoted portion of Phillips’ paper to work as an argument against Wilkins is if the “doctrine of election” and “the word ‘elect’” are the same thing. Barlow’s not misquoting Phillips which makes it look like Phillips misquoted Wilkins. He is rather pointing out that the only way Phillips’ argument can work is if there is no difference between “doctrine of election” (which we all recognize Wilkins didn’t say) and “the word ‘elect’” (which we all recognize Wilkins to have said).

Of course there is a difference between them, they are not the same, and so on these grounds Phillips’ argument is fallacious. It doesn’t matter that Phillips understands the word/concept fallacy. People often understand how logic works, and yet go onto make fallacious arguments. Otherwise all someone would have to do to demonstrate that their argument is valid is point out that they’ve studied logic and they know all the fallacies. Clearly there is a difference between being aware of a fallacy and avoiding the commitance of that fallacy in your own argumentation. Sharp logicians still make bad arguments all the time (for a wide variety of reasons). I’ve done it; I’m sure you’ve done it, Lane; I’m sure Phillips has done it. (People on this blog have gone ad hom on a number of occasions, even though it’s well nigh impossible for anyone to participate in online discussions for more than a week without knowing darn well what the ad hom fallacy is.)

When Wilkins says that he in interested in exploring the way the Bible uses the word ‘elect’, and that this Biblical usage turns out to be broader than the meaning consistently given to the word “election” when Westminster spells out the Reformed doctrine of election, there shouldn’t be a problem so long as Wilkins affirms the Reformed doctrine found in the Confession (which he does). Phillips claims that Wilkins doesn’t do this, that he actually sees the Confession and the Bible in opposition to each other regarding the doctrine of election, and that since Wilkins goes with what he thinks the Bible says this puts him out of bounds, by definition, with the Confession. But the evidence Phillips provides does not establish this claim.

Phillips quotes Wilkins saying that one of his earlier written statements “comes in the context of a discussion of how the word ‘elect’ is used in the Biblical text” and then explains what he thinks this statement from Wilkins means: “His point is that he was merely teaching what the
Bible says about election, in contrast to what the Confession says.” But where die “in contrast to” come from, and where did the phrase “about election” come from? If Phillips means by “about election” the simple word “elect”, then Phillips has to acknowledge that Bible might use the word differently than the Confession always uses it, but that the concepts taught by the Confession and by the Bible could still be compatible. If Phillips means by “about election” the doctrine of election (which is likely given his use of “in contrast to”), then Phillips has mistaken the meaning of Wilkins’ statement, and has used his mistaken undertanding in a way which produces the word/concept fallacy.
Xon said,

January 8, 2007 at 9:30 am

One more point to try to make this clear. Wilkins thinks that the Bible teaches the Westmisnter doctrine of election–i.e., that there are some people who have been predestined by God to live in eternal glory with Him, and that everyone who is not so predestined will not live in eternal glory with Him. Wilkins believes this; and he thinks the Bible teaches this. What Wilkins does not think, though, is that every time the Bible uses the word “elect” it is referring to these predestined-to-eternal-glory people. There simply is no contradiction, either between Wilkins’ understanding of Scripture and the Confession or between Wilkins’ own writings and teaching and the Confession, regarding the doctrine of election. But there is a difference between the way that Wilkins thinks the Bible use the word “elect” and the way that the Confession always uses that word. The Bible does not always use that word in the way that Confession always uses that word.
Xon said,

January 8, 2007 at 11:07 am

For what it’s worth, I’ve contributed a “Part 2″ to Barlow’s criticism of Phillips. I continue Barlow’s basic critique and apply it to Phillips’ comments on the visible/invisible church distinction. It is at my blog here: http://afterdarkness.blogspot.com/2007/01/response-to-richard-phillips-comments.html

I’d also invite anyone to respond to the post immediately after this one: http://afterdarkness.blogspot.com/2007/01/challenge-to-critics-of-federal-vision.html
greenbaggins said,

January 8, 2007 at 11:43 am

All right. First of all, thank you, Jonathan, for commenting on my critique. Thanks even more for your avoidance of ad hom arguments. Thanks for addressing the actual issues. Yes, I like the design of this blog also (though I can’t take credit for it; it is simply one of the designs on offer from WordPress!).

To issues. BOQ I wasn’t saying that Phillips “said” this, only noting that Wilkins *didn’t* say it that way. EOQ I think that I thought that this was what you were saying. My point was that I didn’t think Phillips was misunderstanding him here either. Surely, there is enough overlap between “what Scripture says about election” and “how Scripture uses the term ‘election’” for Philips not to be making the word-concept fallacy. There, I think that is a clear way of putting my position. (Yes, Todd, that was not the most felicitously worded way of saying what Phillips’s connection with the fallacy is; :-))

Let me get at what the overall problem here is. As I see Jonathan (and Xon’s) arguments here, what you’re all saying is that if the WCF uses a term in the sense X, and the Bible uses the word in the sense X, but also in another sense Y, for Wilkins to affirm sense Y without denying sense X is still within the bounds of orthodoxy. Is this your position? It seems like that is a reasonable way of putting your argument. Phillips, I think acknowledges that this is what Wilkins is trying to do. However, the way in which Wilkins defines sense Y (Phillips would argue that Wilkins is misinterpreting Scripture to come up with this sense Y) is in conflict with sense X. So, it is not enough for Wilkins to say, “I affirm sense X.” It is not even enough for Wilkins to say “Sense Y does not conflict with sense X.” I’m sure that he means that. But Phillips’s point is that it simply isn’t so. Now, whether or not Phillips has proved his point is, of course, another matter. However, the form of the argument itself is not fallacious. This is my point. If indeed sense Y (having been gleaned incorrectly from Scripture) is in conflict with sense X, then simply asserting that the two do not contradict is not sufficient to prove the point. Otherwise, we should all just read Hegel instead of the Bible.

BOQ one point in my favor is that there are many epistles in the Bible, and so the theologian has the task of drawing from a fair amount of material and figuring out how to formulate doctrines that do justice to each biblical writer’s God-given perspective and focus. Another point in my favor is that we heirs of Westminster have a fairly fixed technical vocabulary, and even when doing theology in their epistles, the apostles can’t be expected to use terms the way we do. EOQ

Jonathan, I fail to see how admitting the diversity of the Bible proves that the WCF necessarily uses words differently from the Bible. I also fail to see how the “fixed technical vocabulary” of the WCF has been proven to be different from how the apostles use the terms. I simply deny that the WCF uses terms in a way not supported by Scripture. Todd, Heb 10:29 is not to the point here, since the sense in which unbelievers have been set apart is actually not in conflict with progressive sanctification of believers, whereas I believe that Wilkins’s use of the term “election” *is* in conflict with the WCF’s definition. So the cases are not the same.
Stewart said,

January 8, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Baggins,

Is the word “elect” always used in the WCF 3.5 sense throughout all of scripture?
Is saying that Israel is God’s elect nation the exact same thing as saying that the individual person Bill Smith is elect?
greenbaggins said,

January 8, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Stewart, you missed the point of the argument. I am not saying that the Scripture always and in every instance, uses terms the same way that the WCF does. But if we’re going to acknowledge that Scripture does so, then we also had better make sure that the ways in which the WCF uses a term do not conflict with the way Scripture uses them. Todd pointed out that Scripture uses the term “sanctify” in Heb 10:29 in a different way than the WCF uses it. I acknowledged that. However, that use of the term does not in any way conflict with the WCF’s definition of progressive sanctification. However, when it comes to how Wilkins defines election (and I would argue that he eisegetes Scripture in order to get at his definition of election), he contradicts the WCF definition of election. It is not the principle, but the result that is the problem here.
Stewart said,

January 8, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Baggins,

I get your point, but you didn’t answer my question. My question to you is specifically about the term “elect,” not about terms in general Do you admit the word “elect” can be used in different ways in scripture? If so, in what ways can it be used? Can you briefly explain the different ways for me?
Xon said,

January 8, 2007 at 3:42 pm

“Let me get at what the overall problem here is. As I see Jonathan (and Xon’s) arguments here, what you’re all saying is that if the WCF uses a term in the sense X, and the Bible uses the word in the sense X, but also in another sense Y, for Wilkins to affirm sense Y without denying sense X is still within the bounds of orthodoxy. Is this your position? It seems like that is a reasonable way of putting your argument.”

I do think everything you say above is true enough, and I have said those sorts of things before, but I think the full argument goes even further. More below. (Your effort to sum this up was outstanding, though; it’s not easy to sum up someone else’s argument! Erh, does that sound condescending? I only meant it to be gracious… (And it goes without saying that I can’t speak for Barlow, of course.)

“Phillips, I think acknowledges that this is what Wilkins is trying to do. However, the way in which Wilkins defines sense Y (Phillips would argue that Wilkins is misinterpreting Scripture to come up with this sense Y) is in conflict with sense X. So, it is not enough for Wilkins to say, “I affirm sense X.” It is not even enough for Wilkins to say “Sense Y does not conflict with sense X.” I’m sure that he means that. But Phillips’s point is that it simply isn’t so.”

Okay. Lots of opportunity for dialogue (as my liberal relatives would say) here. First, you construe Phillips as saying that Wilkins’s sense Y of the word “elect” conflicts with sense X of the word “elect.” Well, okay, but this isn’t really a problem even if Phillips is right.

Why not? Pretend that in a sermon Wilkins uses the word “elect” to mean “people predestined to eternal damnation.” This is just hypothetical, to illustrate the point. This usage of the word is definitely “in conflict” with the Westminster use of “elect” where “elect” means “people predestined to eternal salvation.” The same person or group of people cannot be “elect” in both senses; it is hard to imagine a sharper contradition between two senses of a word (and, indeed, I had to make up a hypothetical sense for Wilkins in order to achieve this level of sharpness.) Now, suppose that in Wilkins’ sermon he says the sentence “People who go to Heaven are not elect.” But the Confession says “People who go to Heaven are elect.” But since Wilkins and the Confession are using the word “elect” in two different ways when they make those two assertions, then there is not really any contradiction at all. Wilkins’ proposition would mean “People who go to Heaven are not people who are predestined to go to Hell” and Westminster’s proposition would mean “People who go to Heaven are people who are predestined to go to Heaven.” And, of course, there is now no conflict at all, despite what it might have looked like at first. So here we see that, even if the two senses of the same word are in sharp conflict, still the word can be used with both senses in different contexts and no contradiction results.

So this is the first reason I would quibble with the way you have put things, because it’s not just a matter of using a word in different senses and then having a debate over whether those senses conflict with each other, though this is certainly part of what is going on.

It’s not simply that the same word can be used in different senses, it’s also that the same sense of a word can be expressed with other words. In other words, in terms of philosophy of language (sorry!), we can express the same proposition (”doctrine”, belief) with more than one sentence (sequence of words). Of course, real language is tricky, and we all have some familiarity I’m sure (as students of biblical languages if nothing else) with the inherent difficulties of translating from one language to another. But, especially when we are dealing with theological terminology or jargon (I do not mean that term as a pejorative), the labels we apply are largely independent of the concepts to which they are applied. I mean, we have reasons for picking the particular labels we do, but the propositional content of what we are trying to say almost never depends on the particular label that we choose. And, again, in the case of labels created by theologians trying to systematize a bunch of stuff together– which is a very noble cause and needs to be done and our Reformed tradition has been very good at it and I glory in this when talking to all my non-Reformed friends–I think it’s likely that the proposition believed never depends on the particular label that is attached. So, for instance, we don’t need the term “elect” if we want to speak about people predestined from the foundation of the world to live forever with God in glory. Granted, it’s nice to have the shorthand so we don’t have to type this out every time, but we don’t need the particular term.

So, the same word can have different senses, and that which is meant by a particular sense can also be meant using other expressions altogether. And, of course, many expressions/sentences include the propositional content of other expressions, though they don’t say exactly the same thing (again, making translation difficult sometimes).

So, it’s not just that Wilkins uses “elect” to mean X and Y while Westminster uses it only to mean X, and then Phillips thinks that Y contradicts X so we have a problem. It is rather, that the Confession and Wilkins both speak of predestined people and reprobate people (more jargon!), and various things about each of them. The particular labels are not important–it’s the content of what Wilkins says.

The idea (and this is just a picture, not actually achievable because language isn’t really mathematical in this way; but, of course, some might argue that trying to glory in the Bible’s uninhibited poetic use of language is what got FVers into this mess in the first place.) is this. Put all of Wilkins’ theological assertions into propositional form (which we should be able to do without needing any particular theological label like “elect” or “invisible church” or “supralapsarianism”), and then put all of Westminster’s theological assertions into propositional form, and then show a place where Westminster says A while Wilkins says not A. Do this, and you have showed that Wilkins must take an exception to the Confession regarding A (no matter what labels we might normally use to describe A in shorthand), and that he might if the exception is considered weighty enough be out of accord with Westminster. Do it not, and every one of you will die here today…..

Just kidding. Re-focus.
greenbaggins said,

January 8, 2007 at 4:46 pm

To Stewart, I do think that there is such a thing as corporate election (Calvin calls it “general election”). I would chalk up “I chose you Israel”-type passages to that definition. Where I would distinguish between my position and Wilkins’s on this point is that I would not say that the visible church, as elected by God in this general sense, has all the blessings of the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus except perseverance (as he does in _Federal Vision_, pp. 59ff).

To Xon, it seems to me that you are running pell-mell into Hegelianism. Rhetoric that is on the spur of the moment might very well use language such as you are suggesting. But in an examination where one’s orthodoxy is on the line, one should not resort to such language. Thanks, by the way, for telling me that I actually understood your position, at least somewhat. I think that’s a first. I’ve never had any FV person tell me that I understood their position before. Wonders never cease.
Stewart said,

January 8, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Yes, but look at what you’ve just done. You’ve admitted to a biblical use of the term “elect” that conflicts with the one found in WCF 3.5, which is precisely what Rick says Steve is doing. “Elect” in WCF 3.5 are those chosen “unto everlasting glory.” Your redefined doctrine of “general election” doesn’t include this “unto everlasting glory” sense. Your doctrine of election is therefore in conflict with the WCF.

You’re running headlong into Rick’s criticism. Rick main complaint was not that Steve failed to make proper distinctions about how much blessing the elect received (which he does), but that he, to use Rick’s own words, was “in effect, declaring that the Standards define and use the key doctrinal term “election” in a way that is at odds with the Scripture definition and usage of that term.”

Rick is saying that any definition of election that doesn’t include “appointed…unto glory” is un-biblical and in conflict with the WCF. So, since you notion of “general election” doesn’t include this, then you are in conflict with the confession.
greenbaggins said,

January 8, 2007 at 6:31 pm

BOQ Rick is saying that any definition of election that doesn’t include “appointed…unto glory” is un-biblical and in conflict with the WCF. So, since you notion of “general election” doesn’t include this, then you are in conflict with the confession. EOQ

This is not by any means what Rick is doing. What he is saying is not that the bare use of a different definition is the problem, but that Wilkins’s different definition conflicts with the WCF when it says that those who are “covenantally” elect receive all the blessings of being in union with Christ except perseverance. Rick asks the question, “What is election?” What is the WCF definition of election? Those *only* receive saving benefits. Wilkins does not agree with this. He says he does, but his theology contradicts his saying so. The realy issue when it comes to election is this: what are the benefits that only the elect enjoy? And then, what are the benefits that the non-elect within the church enjoy? There is no spillage of saving benefits over to the non-elect. In no way do any ordo salutis benefits accrue to the non-elect. You have erected a straw man out of Rick’s argument, and I am in no way, shape, or form in conflict with the confession. I am not on trial, Wilkins is.
markhorne said,

January 8, 2007 at 7:01 pm

“Wilkins’s different definition conflicts with the WCF when it says that those who are “covenantally” elect receive all the blessings of being in union with Christ except perseverance.”

Which is not Steve’s stated position. Steve has admitted to a qualitative difference in all blessings.

“The realy issue when it comes to election is this: what are the benefits that only the elect enjoy? And then, what are the benefits that the non-elect within the church enjoy? There is no spillage of saving benefits over to the non-elect. In no way do any ordo salutis benefits accrue to the non-elect.”

Which is exactly why Steve insisted on a qualitative difference.
greenbaggins said,

January 8, 2007 at 7:26 pm

It is Wilkins’s stated position in Federal Vision, pp. 58ff. He did not say that he retracted that position. Therefore I can only assume that he still believes it.

With regard to the qualitative difference, while he does state that, the rest of what he says is not in line with that distinction. This is what I have been saying over the last 8 posts on Wilkins’s exam, as well as what Phillips has been saying.
David Gadbois said,

January 8, 2007 at 10:55 pm

“Put all of Wilkins’ theological assertions into propositional form (which we should be able to do without needing any particular theological label like “elect” or “invisible church” or “supralapsarianism”), and then put all of Westminster’s theological assertions into propositional form, and then show a place where Westminster says A while Wilkins says not A.”

I already did this, regarding the ordo salutis, over on Wilson’s blog. Your weak retort was that, well, imputing certain benefits to the elect doesn’t preclude them going to the non-elect. I then quoted various sections that said things like “only elect” and “not the non-elect”, as well as other substantive difficulties (those God justifies he continues to forgive…”).

So, again, Wilkins’ parallel soteriology, while formally distinct from Westminster’ , runs into those sorts of insurmountable A is non-A in the substance (abstract, vague talk about qualitative differences notwithstanding).

As usual, you try to fly off into the land of philosophy rather than dealing with the nitty-gritty of the texts and specifics of systematic doctrine.
markhorne said,

January 8, 2007 at 11:02 pm

Hmmm…. I need to re-read Phillips because I don’t remember him acknowledging the qualitative difference. Also, that statement was in the sessional statement and was then revised on the AAPC website. Did anyone ask him about his statement on p.58. I would think that a change of formulation in cyberspace would be more telling than a hardcopy.

In any case, the qualitative difference exonerates him on all counts from your accusations. They only make sense if you ignore Wilkins own statements about affirming this difference. You have not shown any inconsistency.
Xon said,

January 9, 2007 at 4:59 pm

David G, I’m having a hard time seeing where you did this in that discussion. Honestly. Perhaps you could repeat it here?

I can speculate to get us started, and then you can correct me to fill out the picture. Let’s try to formulate the proposition that Wilkins affirms but which the Confession denies.

Something to do with Wilkins use of a “parallel” ordo salutis for non-elect covenant members. Wilkins thinks that these non-elect covenant members get certain benefits that are usually described with words under the traditional Reformed “ordo salutis” (justification, sanctification, etc.; or some benefits that seem related to these sorts of terms, like forgiveness of sins, adoption as sons, etc.), but that they do not get them in the same way that the elect get them (or they get a different “kind” of these things than the kind the elect get). So how do we put this more propositionally to make the various doctrines clear without getting hung up over particular terms?

NE1: There are people whom God has not predestined to eternal life in glory who are members of God’s covenant community (henceforth non-elect covenant members, or NECMs) and who receive benefits from that membership while it lasts.

So far we have no disagreement, right? The disagreement would come, I take it, when Wilkins posits something like this:

NE2: One benefit the NECMs receive is justification.

And here we are tempted to throw our hands up and say “Aha!” But we’re not done yet, because “justification” is a disputed term in this debate, in terms of its full range of senses. We need to find a particular sense Wilkins gives to that word that we worry might be problematic, substitute that sense in for “justification”, and then see if this proposition is denied by something in the Confession.

I know everyone tires of my wordiness. So I’ll just say “proof left to the reader,” as my logic teacher used to say. But seriously, I ask you David G. or Lane, how would you write the proposition?
Todd said,

January 10, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Maybe I’m just impatient, but I sure would like to see Lane or David, or someone else, take up Xon’s interesting challenge here.
greenbaggins said,

January 10, 2007 at 2:29 pm

On pages 54-59 of Federal Vision, we get this very thing. Pg. 54-” By virtue of union with the Second Adam we have wholeness and restoration- new birth, regeneration, new life.” Pg. 55- “The Bible teaches us that baptism unites us to Christ and His body…At baptism we are clothed with Christ, united to Him and to His Church which is His body.” Pg. 58- “Because being in covenant with God means being in Christ, those who are in covenant have all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. Union with Christ means that all that is true of Christ is true of us.” N.B. I looked carefully through the intervening pages to see if he had changed his definition of union with Christ; he means baptism. Pg. 59- “Being ‘in Christ’ they share in his wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption…They have been washed (or baptized) which has brought about sanctification and justification in the name of Christ, by the Spirit of God.” Pg. 60- “All in covenant are given all that is true of Christ… (pg. 60) Thus, when one breaks covenant, it can be truly said that he has turned away from grace and forfeited life, forgiveness, and salvation.” So the train of thought goes like this: baptism unites us to Christ, taking us into covenant communion with the Triune God. That union with Christ gives us all spiritual blessing in Christ, including justification. There is zero indication in these pages that he means anything different by “justification” than what the WCF says it means in chapter 11. There simply is not one indication of a shift in meaning in justification. That justification is something that he says is losable on page 61. Now, do I even have to provide all the WS references that contradict this teaching? Justification is not losable in any way shape or form. Romans 8 says that extremely clearly. Yet here Wilkins says that it is losable. This really ought to be enough to satisfy anyone’s requirements for proof.
Xon said,

January 10, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Okay, Lane, this is good in that it can really start to get us somewhere. I’d still like to narrow it better, though. This was the point of my question, give me the two statements that look like this:

(Wilkins) NECM: blah blah blah.

(Westminster) NECM: It is not the case that blah blah blah.

To be clear, I’m not asking you to find those exact words. Words aren’t what matter, but the way they are used to mean certain things. Okay.

So, you point helpfully to some passages from pp. 54-61 of the FV book. You seem to want to say that these add up to an assertion by Wilkins of what I a couple of comments ago called “NECM2″.

NECM2: One of the benefits the NECMs receive is justification.

And, of course, there is little need to argue that Westminster says something that sounds contrary to this:

NECMWS2: NECMs do not receive justification.

This doesn’t really help us, though, because we still haven’t defined the term “justification” in both senses. This is what I wanted us to try to do in my previous comment. I think it’s fairly easy to plug in a definition in Westminster’s proposition. The WS use “justification” to mean something like “declaration of God that a person is righteous in His sight and will be with Him forever.” Right? Feel free to modify if you think it’s needed.

So we are getting closer now. For the WS, we have this newest proposition:

NECMWS2.2: NECMs do not receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight and will be with Him forever.

So, if Wilkins said something contrary to this it would have to amount to this:

NECM2.2: One of the benefits that NECMs receive is a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight and will be with Him forever.

If Wilkins teaches NECM2.2, and WCF teaches NECMWS2.2, then I think you’ve got Wilkins. And I definitly think that WCF teaches NECMWS2.2. So, the question is, DOES Wilkins teach NECM2.2?

I don’t think he does, because he makes it pretty clear (I think this can be gleaned from the context of the pages you cited from the FV book, but even if not there it is abundantly clear from statements he has made since then…and the simple fact that he might have been unclear before does not mean he should be defrocked now that he has clarified himself. Right?) that he only thinks NECMs get a “temporary” justification. Exactly what this means is up for discussion, I think, but at the very least it means that Wilkins doesn’t think that NECMS are declared by God to be destined to be in His presence forever. So, if we modify NECM2.2 to reflect this change, we get:

NECM2.2: One of the benefits that NECMs receive is a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight, but there is no declaration that this righteous status will last forever.

Now, when we compare this back with the way we had put Westminster’s doctrine:

NECMWS2.2: NECMs do not receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight and will be with Him forever,

we have removed the contradiction. NECMWS2.2 and NECM2.2 are not contraries–i.e., they can both be true. So if Wilkins teaches NECM2.2 and the Confession teaches NECMWS2.2, then Wilkins is not out of bounds with the Confession on this point.

But, we might say, let’s try again with some tweaks.

Because the whole idea that non-elect people in the covenant ever receive any sort of declaration from God that they are righteous in His sight might strike you as problematic. Perhaps you don’t think that they ever receive any such declaration at all, and that the Confession doesn’t teach this. This would require us to change NECMWS2.2 to read like this:

NECMWS2.3: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight

Now we’re back to a genuine conflict: NECM 2.2 and NECMWS2.3 are contraries–they cannot both be true. So if Wilkins teaches NECM2.2 and the Confession teaches NECMWS2.3, then Wilkins is out of bounds (and at the very least should take an exception on this point).

But, now my skepticism kicks in on the other side: I am not convinced that the Confession actually teaches NECMWS2.3. Does it? Where?
greenbaggins said,

January 10, 2007 at 4:20 pm

This is getting us somewhere, Xon. This is very clear. Let me ask you this: why does WCF 3.6 *not* teach NECMWS2.3? We would certainly have to say that the WS never positively teach a temporary justification. The question, however, as you have pointed out, is whether the WS *eliminate* temporary justification from consideration. It seems to me that there are many passages in the WS that limit justification and other saving benefits only to the elect. WS 3.6 and LC 68 are only the most obvious examples.

It might be helpful here to look at the actual definition of justification in LC 70. “Justifiction is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.” As I see it, there are some implications of this definition that are relevant. “Perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ” implies that the deal is done completely. If Jesus’ full obedience and satisfaction is imputed to a person, but only temporarily, then is Jesus’ obedience really all that perfect and is His satisfaction all that full? The only way that I see to get out of this is to posit not just a difference in the diachronic definition of justification which you have mentioned, but actually to say that there is a difference in the synchronic nature of the two justifications. So then, you have two justifications: one temporary and incomplete, the other eternal and complete. Quite frankly, I don’t see Scripture justifying this, nor the WS. Romans says in 8:1 that there is now therefore *no* condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (surely we would have to say that he is talking about those who have been justified), and that *all* those who are justified are also glorified. There doesn’t seem to be any slippage among those categories in the golden chain. Further, I don’t see anywhere in Wilkins where the difference between the two justifications is anything other than merely diachronic.

Another consideration here is rather important: if there is a temporal difference, then there would also *have* to be a synchronic difference. The reason can be given in the form of a question: What makes one person’s justification be equal to the final verdict, but the other persons’s justification not equal? There has to be something that differs in the two people. If it is a difference in God’s grace, then there is clearly a qualitative difference between the two justifications, since God does eternally justify one, but not the other. If the difference is in man, then there must be an imperfect faith. But an imperfect faith, according to the WS, is not a justifying faith. In order to be justified, one must have true faith that receives, rests, trusts in Christ alone.
Xon said,

January 11, 2007 at 11:14 am

Lane, let’s keep this going. At this point I’m so happy to feel like we are actually talking about “it” that I don’t even think I’d care if I ended up being run out of the PCA with guns shooting at my feet like in an old western. So, serious face back on…

You mention WCF 3.6. That certainly seems a good place to go for this discussion! I assume this is the portion we might find relevant:

“Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.” (WCF 3.6)

Now, we’re trying to focus just on “justification” (though we could presumably have a very similar discussion about any other words Wilkins uses which might bother us). So, a first pass at what the Confession is saying here might look like this:

(WCF 3.6 on Justification) WCF36J: All and only the elect are justified.

(We could actually break this down into two separate discrete propositions, one stating the “All” and the other the “Only”, but it shouldn’t be too confusing to just stick with what I have above. Also, we should technically add some prior proposition that makes it clear that WCF does not teach that everyone is elect. (By itself, WCF36J is consistent with universalism.) But reprobation is such an obvious Reformed doctrine to everyone here that I didnt’ think it needed to be spelled out with its own proposition.)

Like we’ve done before, though, we have to sub in the “usage definitions” for these various terms. So, plugging in for “elect” we get something like:

WCF36J2: All and only those who are predestined by God to live eternally with Him in glory are justified.

Now plug in something for “justified.” What to use, what to use? Ah, you made a very helpful suggestion in your previous comment. That suggestion was to, like, you know, look at WLC 70 where justification is actually defined. Sounds reasonable to me. It’s a pretty long definition, though, and probably it all isn’t relevant to our discussion here, so we need to focus in on a part that looks like it might give us a contrary to Wilkins. You helpfully zero in on the part about the “perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ.” I think I can tighten up a bit what you say in terms of drawing out ‘implications’ of this, but I’m not trying to pull a fast one here so correct this “tightening” if you don’t agree with it. Since these people who are ‘justified’ on Westminster’s usage get the full satisfaction of Christ applied to them, and since the full satisfaction of Christ is a satisfaction made for all a person’s sins, not just some of them, then it seems that these “justified” people that Westminster is talking about have to, by very definition, have all of their sins forgiven (past present and future, as we might say; or as my evangelical cohorts in college might have said, it’s “just as if” they never sinned, and never would sin again.) So, we can modify WCF35J like this:

WCF36J3: All and only those who are predestined by God to live eternally with Him in glory receive a declaration of pardon at some point during their earthly life that includes forgiveness for all sins they will ever commit.

Does this look good? I definitely think WCF36J3 is a Confessional doctrine, for what it’s worth. I agree that the WS teach WCF36J3, and anyone who denies it should at the very least take an exception and quite possibly should have more serious action taken against them given that this deal with “justification” which is an incredibly important Reformation doctrine.

So, the question is, does Wilkins deny this? Notice, first of all, that WCF36J3 is not equivalent to NECMWS2.3 from my previous comment:

NECMWS2.3: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight.

Notice that these two propositions are not the same. NECMWS2.3 claims that non-elect people do not EVER receive ANY declaration of pardon from God. But WCF36J3 includes the claim that non-elect people do not receive a declaration during their lifetime which includes forgiveness for all sins they ever commit. NECMWS2.3 denies to the non-elect any sort of pardon, while WCF36J3 only denies to them a certain kind of pardon. These are very different claims, and Wilkins is not contrary to the latter one. Remember that NECMWS2.3 was posited in the previous comment as a foil to Wilkins’ teaching that NECM2.2, which you’ll recall from the earlier comment looks like this:

NECM2.2: One of the benefits that NECMs receive is a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight, but there is no declaration that this righteous status will last forever.

So, putting all three of them in a row for easier reference:

(An actual Confessional teaching on justification)WCF36J3: All and only those who are predestined by God to live eternally with Him in glory receive a declaration of pardon at some point during their earthly life that includes forgiveness for all sins they will ever commit.

(An alleged Confessional teaching on justification)NECMWS2.3: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight.

(A Wilkins teaching on justification)NECM2.2: One of the benefits that NECMs receive is a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight, but there is no declaration that this righteous status will last forever.

As we saw before, Wilkins’ NECM2.2 and NECMWS2.3 are contraries. This was where we thought there could be a problem for Wilkins. But I said I was skeptical that the Confession actually teaches NECMWS2.3, and hence there would be no contradiction b/w Wilkins and the Confession on this point. You have helpfully pointed us to WCF 3.6, but it doesn’t look to me like 3.6 actually teaches NECMWS2.3. It looks instead like it teaches WCF36J3. These are not the same, and Wilkins’ NECM2.2 is not contrary to WCF36J3. It is only contrary to NECMWS2.3.

There are lots of related issues, of course, but so far nothing we haven’t found anything that puts Wilkins and the Confession in opposition to one another.

(This is enough for now, but there’s still other stuff to consider. I think a lot of your “diachronic” vs. “synchronic” discussion was really good and interesting, but I also think it is more or less tied up in all the stuff I just said. But spelling that all out could take some more work from both of us. Baby steps…

Also, I didn’t deal at all with WLC 68 just now. My quick answer is that I think that discussion will go pretty similarly to what I just did above with WCF 3.6, but I haven’t thought it through enough yet to say that for sure.)
greenbaggins said,

January 11, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Okay, again helpful and clear, Xon. I think I followed you all the way, although all the different algebraic notations for abbreviations are getting difficult.

Let me try to summarize what you are saying: WCF says that only the elect get a complete forgiveness of all sins. “Complete forgiveness” does not rule out “temporary incomplete forgiveness.” Wilkins teaches the latter in reference to NECM, but not the former. This is probably a bit simplistic, but I am trying to generalize here for the benefits of some of my readers who can’t follow tightly logical abbreviations and such.

Okay, my response will be two-fold to this. The first prong will be my attempt to prove that the WCF teaches that there is only one kind of forgiveness. The second prong will be my attempt to prove that Wilkins teaches not a “temporary incomplete forgiveness” for NECM’s, but rather a “temporary complete forgiveness.” If I prove the first prong, then anyone who teaches a different kind of forgiveness is by definition out of accord with the WCF. If I prove the second prong, then I will prove that Wilkins, specifically, has in fact stepped out of bounds.

Prong 1. For this prong, we must go to chapter 15 of the WCF. The section in question is section 3, but we must set the context of the previous three sections. WCF 15 defines repentance unto life as an evangelical grace (15.1). “By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grives for, and hates his sins, as to turn *from them all* (emphasis added) unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments” (section 2). This defines repentance as a repentance unto life and a turning from them all. It is a complete repentance. This is vital to the argument. It is this repentance that “is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.” In other words, there is *no pardon at all* without complete and utter repentance. There is no delimitation on the word “pardon,” such that one could argue that there is a specific kind of pardon that the WCF is talking about. The WCF simply says “pardon.” One could even paraphrase “any pardon.” And remember that this repentance is a repentance unto life. It must be asserted here also that pardon equals forgiveness. I don’t think that anyone will quibble with this, especially since the editors of the WCF saw them as synonymous (look at the index under “forgiveness,” and it says “see ‘pardon.’” What I believe this proves is that “repentance unto life” is necessary to receive *any* pardon from God (of course, this repentance is an evangelical *grace*). This eliminates any possibility for a lesser pardon of sins, since a NECM cannot have true repentance unto life (unless we admit Arminianism into the discussion). Okay, that is prong 1.

Prong 2. What does Wilkins teach? Does he teach a “temporary incomplete forgiveness” or a “temporary complete forgiveness?” In one sense, the question is moot if I have already proved prong 1, since there is only one kind of forgiveness that the WCF allows. However, it is still a helpful logical exercise to establish what Wilkins teaches about the kind of forgiveness that a NECM receives. Again I will go to his article in the Federal Vision. Pg. 55 “At baptism we are clothed with Christ, united to him and to His Church which is His body;” pg. 55 “By virtue of our union with Him, we are made recipients of *all* (emphasis mine) that is His;” pg. 56 “As we abide in Him, *all* (emphasis mine) that is true of Him is true of us;” pg. 58 “Because being in covennt with God means being in Christ, those who are in covenant have *all* (emphasis mine) spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. Union with Christ means that *all* (emphasis mine) that is true of Christ is true of us;” pg. 59 “They have been washed (or baptized) which has brought about sanctification and justification in the name of Christ, by the Spirit of God;” pg. 60 “All in covenant are given all that is true of Christ;” pg. 61 “Thus, when one breaks covenant, it can be truly said that he has turned away from grace and forfeited life, *forgiveness,* (emphasis mine), and salvation.”

Now, let’s fill in a few of the gaps here. Baptism means union with Christ. Union with Christ means that all that is true of Christ is true of those united by baptism to Christ. If all that is true of Christ is true of those baptized into union with Christ, then *all* Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer. Otherwise, they would not have *all* spiritual blessings (see pg. 58). By metonymy, having Christ’s righteousness is the flip-side (irrevocably connected) of being forgiven of all one’s sins (see Romans 6:6-7 and how Paul quotes David). If we have all that is true of Christ, then we have His righteousness as well, which means that all our sins have been forgiven. If we only have part of Christ’s righteousness, then we don’t have all that is true of Christ, which Wilkins says we do have. Therefore Wilkins is teaching a temporary, complete forgiveness.
Todd said,

January 11, 2007 at 12:18 pm

“The first prong will be my attempt to prove that the WCF teaches that there is only one kind of forgiveness. If I prove the first prong, then anyone who teaches a different kind of forgiveness is by definition out of accord with the WCF.”

Uh oh, Lane. Here’s what you said before: “But as the Puritans say, there are two kinds of forgiveness: ultimate once-for-all forgiveness of sins, and the Fatherly forgiveness of daily sins. These two are distinct.”
greenbaggins said,

January 11, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Okay, I am talking about forgiveness from the wrath of God as Judge. So these posts on this thread are talking about whether or not there is more than one kind of forgiveness from the wrath of God as judge. The question of the Puritans and Matthew 6 I see as a whole separate issue, which deals with God’s Fatherly displeasure. WCF 11.5 makes this distinction.
Xon said,

January 11, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Darnit, Lane, you are pumping out your responses a lot faster than I am able to formulate mine. Sorry if this makes things sludge along sometimes.

From here, I’m going to clean up the propositional labels. Not even analytic philosophy lets them get as crazy as I did in my last few comments. From here on out, if we’re talking about something Wilkins teaches (or allegedly teaches), we’ll call the proposition W1, W2, etc. If we’re talking about something the Confession teaches (or allegedly teachese), we’ll call the proposition C1, C2, etc. Good to go?

I want to address Prong 2 a bit more quickly, because we all agree that Prong 1 is the lynchpin of your argument and Prong 2 is more like gravy. At the same time, though, obviously Prong 2 is important.

There is a lot that is familiar in what you said under Prong 2, Lane, from all the previous conversations we’ve been having here on your blog. Maybe it’s just me, but the work we have done getting “clear” on what we’re REALLY talking about has helped clarify your own argument TREMENDOUSLY. In other words, I understand better now than I ever did before how your argument is supposed to work.

That said, I still don’t agree with it. But let’s see why.

The first problem is something I think you can probably clear up by simply choosing your words slightly differently, but right now it is sticking me in my ear as not quite right. You seem to be arguing by quoting a bunch of things Wilkins says, word for word, and then connecting the concepts together (using his same words), and then concluding with “Therefore Wilkins TEACHES x, y, z.”

The problem here is that Wilkins does not TEACH a complete forgiveness for non-elect people. Even if your interpretation of his words is right, this is something that Wilkins appears to have missed. Many of his comments since the article in the FV book make it clear that he thinks it is only a temporary, incomplete forgiveness that the non-elect get. To say he “teaches” something implies (to me, at least) that he is intentionally saying is and knows what it is that he is saying.

Your argument really seems to be that, while Wilkins denies it formally, the CONSEQUENCES of some of his teachings in fact entail a complete forgiveness for non-elect people. This is nothing earth-shattering, and maybe I’m being pedantic here (if I am I apologize). In fact you have made the point many times in the past that Wilkins is “inconsistent” with some of his more formal statements. So I’m not telling you anything you haven’t already argues. Still, though, it seems important to keep this clearly in mind when reading your argument for Prong 2. You are arguing that Wilkins’ words in the FV article ENTAIL a complete forgiveness for non-elect people, not that Wilkins is self-consciously TEACHING such a thing. (There is room for disagrement that “teach” implies self-consciousness, I suppose. Like I said, maybe this complaint is just fruit of my own weirdness on this.) Even if you disagree with my understanding of what “teach” means, I think it just keeps things much clearer when we put them in the first way instead.

My second concern is just that, even if you are right about Wilkins’ inconsistency here, it seems like too harsh a punishment to defrock a man for this kind of inconsistency. I mean, he says really insistently that he doesn’t think non-elect covenant members have complete forgiveness. They do not go to Heaven when they die; they go to Hell. At the last day, they are left in their sins before the judgment seat of Christ. He says all of this, and even explains it in ways that I think we could all agree with. It seems to be overkill to me to go back to his article in the FV book and say that, no matter what he says today, that article said something different and whether he realizes this or not he should be held accountable as believing both sides of the inconsistency. Don’t get me wrong here: if his FV article was really inconsistent in this way–if that article really does say that the non-elect get a complete forgiveness despite Wilkins’ own denials that he believes this–then Wilkins should have to recant or apologize for that article. He should come clean, assuming someone can convince him by showing him the inconsistency between what he says today and what he said in the article in the FV book. Also, the fact that pastor of a PCA church could be that sloppy and unaware of the consequences of some of his own teachings would be a cause for concern, and it would certainly be legitimate for his own presbytery (or even another presbytery, allowing for the proper denominational procedure) to question him on these things, to challenge him, even to rebuke him and order him not to teach these particular things anymore. I don’t deny the right of the concerned to look into this further: if the article in the FV book teaches these things, then it is okay to be concerned and to pursue that concern. This IS part of what the presbyterian form of government is all about, that we are all accountable to one another, not free to just teach whatever we want to teach, no matter how confusing of misleading or inconsistent with orthodox theology it may be. I hope it is clear that I am with you on all that. I just wonder about “defrocking”, or about declaring Wilkins “unReformed”, or about treating denominations that are more in tune with Wilkins’ teaching as though they are not Reformed. He sounds more like he is a sadly confused Reformed, but not unReformed. This may be more about semantics than I realize, but it is a concern I have with the way the controversy is currently going, as between those who want Wilkins to get off scot-free and those who want him ousted.

Okay, let me break here and do another comment on the substance of Prong 2. Didn’t I say something about dealing with Prong 2 “quickly”? Oh well!
greenbaggins said,

January 11, 2007 at 1:38 pm

BOQ You are arguing that Wilkins’ words in the FV article ENTAIL a complete forgiveness for non-elect people, not that Wilkins is self-consciously TEACHING such a thing. EOQ Since this is the clearest expression of what you’re trying to get across, I’ll respond to it. You are certainly right that I am claiming inconsistency between what he says he believes versus the implications of his teaching. That is what I have said. However, I cannot go too quickly from there to saying that therefore, he is not teaching it. How do we know that? That might depend on any number of factors. Maybe Wilkins is smart enough to realize the consequences of his teaching. If that is the case, then it doesn’t speak very well for his motives. He could be deliberately fudging. I don’t see this possibility in your list of options. Is it not a possibility? False teachers in the past have done so. If Wilkins is a false teacher, then he could be deliberately fudging. If so, then he is deliberately *teaching* false doctrine without calling it that, or formally doing it. The other possibility is that he is not aware of the consequences of his inconsistency. If that is the case, then it doesn’t speak well of his intelligence. We are not talking about small inconsistencies. I have accused him of huge inconsistencies, architectonic inconsistencies.

Take your time, by the way, and don’t be frustrated by the fact that I type so fast.
Xon said,

January 11, 2007 at 1:49 pm

I have to teach right now, so I really do have to come back to this later. But I will, and I am excited about doing so.
Xon said,

January 11, 2007 at 1:53 pm

“He could be deliberately fudging. I don’t see this possibility in your list of options. Is it not a possibility?”

Oh, sure, that’s a logical possibility. I just didn’t want to go there since none of us knows his motives. I just don’t see how we could argue that this is what he is doing, deliberately teaching it and then saying he doesn’t.

But of course it’s possible, and he wouldn’t be the first false teacher to do so. I just didn’t want to go there since it’s not needed for our discussion of whether or not he is in fact out of accord with the Confession. Why go with the “deliberately teaching insonsistently to the Confession” interpretation of his actions when “unrealizingly [is that a word?] inconsistent with the Confession” works just as well and is more charitable? That’s all I’m saying.
Xon said,

January 11, 2007 at 1:54 pm

And, hey, I type really fast myself (even my one-time secretary wife is impressed). But these algebraic proposition thingies are taking a LOT of thought and revision. Not a word out of place, precious!
greenbaggins said,

January 11, 2007 at 2:31 pm

My point was that his deliberately fudging could be one way in which he actually teaches something that he formally says that he doesn’t. That is why I can’t necessary say that he *doesn’t* teach it, if you follow me.
Xon said,

January 11, 2007 at 8:31 pm

Yeah, I follow you. Onward!
David Gadbois said,

January 11, 2007 at 8:37 pm

“I said I was skeptical that the Confession actually teaches NECMWS2.3, and hence there would be no contradiction b/w Wilkins and the Confession on this point. You have helpfully pointed us to WCF 3.6, but it doesn’t look to me like 3.6 actually teaches NECMWS2.3. It looks instead like it teaches WCF36J3. These are not the same, and Wilkins’ NECM2.2 is not contrary to WCF36J3. It is only contrary to NECMWS2.3. ”

Your skepticism is without warrant. NECMWS2.3 is a necessary consequence of WCF 11.5:

“God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification”

It leaves no wiggle room, that you imagine, for temporary justification.

Of course, this teaching is based on the unbreakability of the Golden Chain/ordo salutis in Romans 8, which Wilkins shoots himself in the foot with by quoting it.

And on what legal basis could the declaration of righteousness be revoked? This is, AT BEST, Lutheranism. It is not Reformed. If one is imputed the righteousness of Christ, which that declaration is based on, then it would be double jeopardy for judgment to come upon the sinner.

So this leads to a breakdown in our doctrine of the work of Christ as well:

“To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit”
Xon said,

January 11, 2007 at 11:16 pm

My response to Lane is taking a little time to finish crafting, but in the meantime I can respond to David G. fairly quickly.

Your skepticism is without warrant. NECMWS2.3 is a necessary consequence of WCF 11.5:

“God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification”

It leaves no wiggle room, that you imagine, for temporary justification.

I appreciate you offering another suggestion for a place where WCF teaches (or entails) NECMWS2.3, David G. But, remember, we have to plug in the “usage definitions” of words like “justified”. We cannot assume that WS and Wilkins are talking about the same thing just b/c they both use the word “justified”. This is the whole point of what Lane and I have been fruitfully hashing out so far. If we’re going to look at WCF 11.5, then, we have to remember to sub in the WS “usage definition” for “justified”. So, the portion of WCF 11.5 you quoted appears to be a conjunction of two separate propositions, but we can write them together no problem for our little game:

C1: God continues to forgive the sins of those that are justified, and those that are justified can never fall from the state of justification.

Now we plug in the “usage definitions” for “justified” (which occurs twice) and “justification.” Using the same definition (or something very close) as we used above when looking at WCF 3.6 (a definition which was culled from LC 70), we get something like this:

C2: God continues to forgive the sins of those that \receive a declaration of pardon at some point during their earthly life that includes forgiveness for all sins they will ever commit/, and \those who receive this declaration/ can never fall from the state of \being pardoned by God for all the sins they will ever commit./

Is there some meaning to the words of WCF 11.5 that I am missing here? Please offer whatever corrective you think appropriate. This looks right to me, though.

C2 doesn’t tell us WHO it is that receives this declaration of pardon from God which includes forgiveness for all their sins. But obviously we know from other things we have said in the past that this is only those who have been predestined by God to live eternally with Him in glory. (Look at WCF36J3.) So let’s add this in a separate proposition:

C3: All and only those predestined by God to live eternally with Him in glory receive the declaration of pardon discussed in C2.

Now look again at NECMWS2.3:

NECMWS2.3: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight.

Now, do C2 and C3 together allow us to derive NECMWS2.3 (which is what we are trying to derive based on WCF 11.5)? It looks to me like the answer to this must clearly be in the negative. C2 and C3 are not even predicating of the same subject as NECMWS2.3. In other words, there looks to be all kinds of “wiggle room” here regarding some sort of declaration of pardon to some non-elect people because C2 and C3 can’t be used to derive anything at all about non-elect people. They are predicating something to elect people, and to the “justification” that these receive. You can’t derive a predication of non-elect people from two statements that only predicate of elect people. There is just no way to get from these two to NECMWS2.3. There might be a way to derive NECMWS2.3 from something else in the WS, but such a derivation would most likely be unrelated to C2 and C3 and would most likely not even need to reference them at all.

And, remember, we need to get NECMWS2.3 from the Confession if we are to argue that Wilkins’ NECM2.2 is contrary to the Confession. We haven’t got it yet. Of course, we could argue that Wilkins teaches some other doctrine besides NECM2.2 which is contrary. Something like this, perhaps:

W1: God does NOT ALWAYS continue to forgive the sins of those that \receive a declaration of pardon at some point during their earthly life that includes forgiveness for all sins they will ever commit/, and \those who receive this declaration/ CAN fall from the state of \being pardoned by God for all the sins they will ever commit./

W1 could be easily shown to be inconsistent with C2 and C3 taken together. But I don’t think anyone can find a place where Wilkins ever teaches anything that amounts to W1 (nor have I even heard anyone claim that he does so, since W1 says that God declares that He will forgive some people for every sin they ever commit, but then reneges and doesn’t do so. Nowhere does Wilkins ever say anything like this.)

Or we could try to argue a different doctrine is taught by Wilkins:

W2: There are people who have not been predestined by God to live eternally with Him but who receive a declaration of pardon at some point during their earthly life that includes forgiveness for all sins they will ever commit.

Or even further:

W3 There are people who have not been predestined by God to live eternally with Him but who receive a declaration of pardon at some point during their earthly life that includes forgiveness for all sins they will ever commit, and these people who have not been so predestined by God can never fall from the state of being pardoned by God for all the sins they will ever commit.

W2 says that there are some people who are not elect but whom God says He will forgive for all the sins they ever commit. W3 goes even further and says that there are some people who are not elect about whom God says He will forgive them for all their sins, AND God in fact does so. These are both CLEARLY unconfessional, easily shown to be inconsistent with C2 and C3. But, again, I don’t think Wilkins ever teaches W2 or W3.

So, I don’t see how WCF 11.5 fairs any better as a “prooftext” for NECMWS2.3. Nor do I see how it teaches any other doctrien that is contrary to a doctrine of Wilkins’.
David Gadbois said,

January 12, 2007 at 1:46 am

“They are predicating something to elect people, and to the “justification” that these receive. You can’t derive a predication of non-elect people from two statements that only predicate of elect people.”

Re-read WCF 11.5. The object is “those that are justified.” Theoretically (and I mean theoretically) that could refer to an elect person or a non-elect person. If they are justified, this passage applies to them, elect or non-elect, period. And what happens to this group? God CONTINUES to forgive them. Excluding the idea that the non-elect covenant members cannot see condemnation on the Last Day, this would exclude the whole idea of a justified non-elect covenant member.

Now this is not just incidental, an isolated blunder on Wilkin’s part - I already mentioned the systematic and Scriptural problems you run into if you try to posit this sort of thing in my last post. His theology is a train wreck.

Now, possibly, Wilkins may see “justification” in a different definition (one that does not include things like the imputation of Christ’s righteousness that Chap. 11 talks about). But he hasn’t gone beyond giving formal lip service to this. And he has given us every reason to believe otherwise - even appropriating the “if God is for us, who can be against us” language of justification:

“If God is for us, who can be against us? Christ died, rose again, and makes intercession for us, who can separate us from the love of God?”

Apparently this is not a rhetorical question for Wilkins. We can separate ourselves from the love of God by covenantal unfaithfulness. He, of course, skipped over the part about there being no condemnation in Christ Jesus. He is absolutely talking about ‘justification’ in the Westminsterian sense.
Xon said,

January 12, 2007 at 7:24 am

Re-read WCF 11.5. The object is “those that are justified.” Theoretically (and I mean theoretically) that could refer to an elect person or a non-elect person. If they are justified, this passage applies to them, elect or non-elect, period.

Of course I’m not positive, David G., but I suspect that Lane and I would be in agreement against you here. (Since Lane didn’t bring up this interpretation in response to my exposition of WCF 3.6, which is similar to WCF 11.5 in a number of ways.) You really think that when the Confession brings up the word “justified” and “justification” in 11.5 that it doesn’t intend to import all the meaning it thinks that word contains? If you are right, this would make the Confession vague in its use of terms, which violates one of the whole points of a Confession. (Confessions are not the same thing as “systematic theology”, but they do have a purpose that is rather systematic, hence “system of doctrine taught in the Scripture.” Individual people are vague all the time, because words themselves have so many meanings and uses and it is hard for any finite mind to stay clear all the way through everything they say, but the Confession is presumably rising above this ordinary vagueness of everyday speech. It is trying to tell us what we must believe, and this requires a clear definition of terms and the consistent usage of those terms throughout. It seems to me that your interpretatin of 11.5 renders the Confession vague by having it “step back” from the full meaning of a term. Given how the Confession defines justification, for instance, as a particular kind of pardon that only goes to elect people, if it wanted to say that this is the only kind of pardon that anyone ever receives then it could have said so by simply using the word “pardon” (which is already a part of its definition of “justification”). But not by using the word “justified”, which it already defines as a particular kind of pardon.

The irony here is that I worry you are undermining the Confession’s authority more than you realize with this argument. Because if the Confession slips between using words with its full beautiful definitions attached and using them simply as a vague filler for “anyone who happens to be x, whatever that means (as though it doesn’t define the term)”, then we are going to have trouble understanding a whole host of passages from the Confession. Really, every time the Confession says anything abot “justification” outside of LC 70, we will have to assume that the word “justification” in that place is just a filler word that means something like “justification, whatever that means.” This seems to dishonor the divines’ intentions in much of what they wrote, not honor them.

Finally, the truth is that it is usually pretty clear when people are using words in this vague sort of way. When a person is talking about a word, for instance. When an English teacher stands up and tells her class: “Okay, class, our first new vocabulary word that we are going to use this week is ‘unadulterated,’” she is clearly not importing any meaning into the word. She is simply talking ABOUT the word. Of course, she presumably goes on to define the word for the class (since it’s a vocab lesson and all), but until she does so, she’s only talking ABOUT the word “unadulterated”, and isn’t giving a definition. (There is a preview here of a possible argument about Wilkins’ article in the FV book.)

Is it your claim that in WCF 11.5 the divines are only trying to tell us something ABOUT the word “justified”, but aren’t wanting us to understand any particular meaning as attaching to that word?

If you say, “No, Xon, I made it clear that they attach a meaning to it, but it is a meaning that could theoretically include elect or non-elect people,” then I will ask you WHERE from the context you are getting this idea, especially since when Westminster explicitly defines “Justification” in LC 70 they make it clear that it is something that only happens to elect people. Where is your “theoretical” meaning coming from?
Xon said,

January 12, 2007 at 11:05 am

Okay, that was too hastily written as I ran out the door this morning. Please let me try again. If you found anything edified, then continue to feel edified. If you thought some of it was junk, then give me another chance.

David G., you suggested that WCF 11.5 teaches NECMWS2.3. I looked at the portion of WCF 11.5 you quoted and I translated it to C1:

C1: God continues to forgive the sins of those that are justified, and those that are justified can never fall from the state of justification.

I then plugged in “those who receive a declaration of pardon from God at soem point during their earthly life, a pardon which includes the forgiveness of all sins they will ever commit” for “those that are justified”. This “usage definition” was drawwn from Westminster’s own definition of “justification” in LC 70. I did this because, again, we have to look at the “usage definitions” of words in their context if we are going to see whether Wilkins really contradicts the Confession or not. We can’t just let words like “justified” stand on their own, because these words are being used (or at least might be used) in different ways. If we fail to substitute the proper “usage definition” in for each occurrence of “justified”, then we commit the fallacy of equivocation when we condemn Wilkins of violating the Confession. We don’t want to do this, so we need to plug in the proper “usage definition,” for both Wilkins’ usages of the word “justification” and the Confession’s usages, and THEN see if there is an inconsistency between the two.

So, plugging in proper usage definitions for “those that are justified” (twice) and “state of justification”, C1 became C2.

C2: God continues to forgive the sins of those that receive a declaration of pardon at some point during their earthly life that includes forgiveness for all sins they will ever commit, and those who receive this declaration can never fall from the state of being pardoned by God for all the sins they will ever commit.

But C2 does not tell us WHO is justified in this way, it just tells us some things that are true about people who are. I added C3 to make it clear that the Confession also teaches elsewhere WHO gets justified in this way. It isn’t said in WCF 11.5, but it is clear from many other places and has already been assumed in Lane and my previous discussion here.

C3: All and only those predestined by God to live eternally with Him in glory receive the declaration of pardon discussed in C2.

Now, it sounds like you (David G) disagree with my formulation of C2. So, the question is, why? Do you think that I have plugged in the wrong definitions for “justified” and “justification” in C1? Or do you think C1 itself is in need of modification? (So it’s not a matter of plugging the right definitions into “justified” and “justification” in C1, it’s a matter of re-wording C1 altogether and THEN plugging in the right definitions.) This latter seems like the more likely reading of what you say here:

Re-read WCF 11.5. The object is “those that are justified.” Theoretically (and I mean theoretically) that could refer to an elect person or a non-elect person. If they are justified, this passage applies to them, elect or non-elect, period. And what happens to this group? God CONTINUES to forgive them. Excluding the idea that the non-elect covenant members cannot see condemnation on the Last Day, this would exclude the whole idea of a justified non-elect covenant member.

What you SEEM to be saying here, if I understand you correctly, is that you object to translating WCF 11.5 as C1. Instead, you want to translate it somthing like this:

C4: The only kind of justification is a justification in which God continues to forgive the sins of the justified person, so that all of the sins they ever commit are forgiven.

But this has “justification” and “justified” in it all over the place, so we still need to clean it up with Westminster’s “usage definitions.” In the context of what we are talking about right now, “declaration of pardon for sinners” seems to be a good quick fill-in for “justification,” though again modify this if you think I’m getting it wrong. So let’s translate C4 into C5:

C5: The only declaration of pardon for sinners is a declaration in which God continues to forgive the sins of the pardoned person, so that all of the sins they ever commit are forgiven.

This is certainly different from my C1. But this is also a very unnatural reading of WCF 11.5, which says (to remind everyone):

“God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification…”

The most obvious reading of this statement in WCF 11.5, it seems to me, is that it is picking out a particular group of people and telling us something about that group of people, that God continues to forgive their sins in such a way that all the sins they ever commit are forgiven and they cannot ever fall from being forgiven in this way. This group of people that is being picked out is “those that are justified.” And “justification” has a clear and beautiful definition in the WS, so we aren’t left to guesswork as to who is in mind here. This is what is reflected in my C1, once it is turned into my C2 and then combined with C3.

Your C5 (if indeed you are willing to claim it), however, says something quite different than this. Your C5 goes beyond my C2 and C3. It goes beyond a claim about what kind of pardon God gives the elect (which is something we can learn from my C2 and C3), and claims that this kind of pardon is the ONLY kind of pardon that God gives to ANYONE. You think you are drawing this from the language of WCF 11.5? I just don’t see it.
Xon said,

January 12, 2007 at 11:15 am

I agree that, if WCF 11.5 teaches C5, then from C5 we could derive NECMWS2.3 (assuming that “a declaration of God that they are rigtheous in His sight” is synonymous with “a declaration of pardon from God.” What I find highly problematic is your effort to get C5 from WCF 11.5. It just doesn’t ‘compute’ that way, from what I can see.
Xon said,

January 12, 2007 at 4:30 pm

“Let me try to summarize what you are saying: WCF says that only the elect get a complete forgiveness of all sins. “Complete forgiveness” does not rule out “temporary incomplete forgiveness.” Wilkins teaches the latter in reference to NECM, but not the former. This is probably a bit simplistic, but I am trying to generalize here for the benefits of some of my readers who can’t follow tightly logical abbreviations and such.”

No, Lane, that was a very good summation. Of course, we can put things a bit more tightly, this is why I’m using the “proposition method”, but as a summary of what my propositions have tried to show so far, this was very good. We are on the same page. We know what we are actually talking about.

Now, on to your “Prong 2.” (Folks should check back up at comment #28, third paragraph, to see what Lane’s two prongs are.) I agree that Prong 1 is the far more deadly prong from an FV perspective, b/c it would simply show that the WS do not allow for any kind of forgiveness from the wrath of God other than the one they describe. Prong 2 is really just “gravy”, in that it only claims to show a particular bothersome teaching from Wilkins only. Any FVer, or at least a lot of them, would presumably be in trouble if you could prove Prong 1, but only Wilkins is in trouble under Prong 2. So, Prong 1 also needs to be answered. But Prong 2 first.

You seek to show “that Wilkins teaches not a ‘temporary incomplete forgiveness’ for NECMs, but rather a ‘temporary complete forgiveness.’” Because it was now sixteen comments ago or so, let me repeat your argument in full:

Prong 2. What does Wilkins teach? Does he teach a “temporary incomplete forgiveness” or a “temporary complete forgiveness?” In one sense, the question is moot if I have already proved prong 1, since there is only one kind of forgiveness that the WCF allows. However, it is still a helpful logical exercise to establish what Wilkins teaches about the kind of forgiveness that a NECM receives. Again I will go to his article in the Federal Vision. Pg. 55 “At baptism we are clothed with Christ, united to him and to His Church which is His body;” pg. 55 “By virtue of our union with Him, we are made recipients of *all* (emphasis mine) that is His;” pg. 56 “As we abide in Him, *all* (emphasis mine) that is true of Him is true of us;” pg. 58 “Because being in covenant with God means being in Christ, those who are in covenant have *all* (emphasis mine) spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. Union with Christ means that *all* (emphasis mine) that is true of Christ is true of us;” pg. 59 “They have been washed (or baptized) which has brought about sanctification and justification in the name of Christ, by the Spirit of God;” pg. 60 “All in covenant are given all that is true of Christ;” pg. 61 “Thus, when one breaks covenant, it can be truly said that he has turned away from grace and forfeited life, *forgiveness,* (emphasis mine), and salvation.”

Now, let’s fill in a few of the gaps here. Baptism means union with Christ. Union with Christ means that all that is true of Christ is true of those united by baptism to Christ. If all that is true of Christ is true of those baptized into union with Christ, then *all* Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer. Otherwise, they would not have *all* spiritual blessings (see pg. 58). By metonymy, having Christ’s righteousness is the flip-side (irrevocably connected) of being forgiven of all one’s sins (see Romans 6:6-7 and how Paul quotes David). If we have all that is true of Christ, then we have His righteousness as well, which means that all our sins have been forgiven. If we only have part of Christ’s righteousness, then we don’t have all that is true of Christ, which Wilkins says we do have. Therefore Wilkins is teaching a temporary, complete forgiveness.

Okay. So the way the argument seems to go is that Wilkins creates a sort of “chain of benefits” that flows to everyone who is baptised. This chain of benefits includes things that can only entail a temporary and complete forgiveness. Therefore, Wilkins has taught things from which can be derived the complete forgiveness of non-elect baptised people. How’s that?

Let’s fill this out as premises and conclusion:

P1: Wilkins creates a “chain of benefits” that flows to everyone who is baptized. (Claim)
P2: Some baptized people are non-elect. (Assumption not in dispute.)
P3: Non-elect baptized people only receive this chain of benefits in a way that is temporary. (Assumption not in dispute; derived from definition of “non-elect”)
P4: This chain of benefits entails a complete forgiveness of sins. (Claim)
C: Therefore, Wilkins’ teachings entail a temporary complete forgiveness for some non-elect people.

The form of reasoning here seems valid, so the only way to refute the argument is to go after one or more of the premises. P1, P2, and P3 all look solid. So this leaves us with P4, which is where I am skeptical.

Like we have been doing before, we HAVE to take Wilkins’ statements that you cite from the article in the FV book and “translate” all the controversial terms that might have different usage definitions. So, we need to look at the words Wilkins uses in describing the chain of benefits that go to non-elect people, and sub in the proper “usage definitions” of those words. Once we have done that, then we can look and see if what Wilkins says entails a “temporary complete forgiveness” for all baptized people.

Your citations of the article in the FV book point to the following phrases which Wilkins uses to describe the chain of benefits for the baptized:

–“clothed with Christ” (1)
–“united to Christ and to His Church” (2)
–“made recipients of all that is His” (3)
–“all that is true of Him is true of us” (4)
–“have all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places” (5)
–“sanctification and justification in the name of Christ, by the Spirit of God” (6)
–“grace” (7)
–“life” (
–“forgiveness” (9)
–“salvation” (10)

I doubt we need to go through all 10 of these in detail. If you think I miss something important by skipping some of them then by all means come back along and point it out.

I said I was skeptical of P4. Why? The first reason is simply that the phrase “temporary complete forgiveness” seems like an oxymoron. I am not sure what you mean by it. If it is only temporary, then by definition at the last day these people end up being found in their sins, and so they are not forgiven and go to Hell. That hardly seems “complete”—in the ultimate sense, it is what I would call “incomplete.” On the other hand, if it is a “complete” forgiveness, then it cannot be temporary (same argument as above, basically, just starting from the other side).

You could argue that Wilkins’ view entails this kind of absurdity if you want. People do teach things that are reducible to absurdity all the time. But this is a tough charge to make stick, and especially in the interest of charity I would think that we would want to be careful not to impute such an obvious absurdity to someone. We should only make this interpretation if we have no other choice.

It seems to me that (2) all by itself, since we know that when Wilkins says “union with Christ” he is thinking of a temporary union with Christ, makes this whole baptism benefit chain temporary in nature, and thus whatever forgiveness must also be only temporary, and hence not complete.

Ah, but let’s look a little more closely at (3) – (5), which seem basically synonymous. I would say that, in the time I have spent on this blog (about a month now), this is probably where your arguments are most ferocious (not a bad thing) and insistent. And it makes sense that you would be ferocious and insistent, because of that darn word “all.” Wilkins says that we can say of NECMs things like “all that is Christ is theirs” and “all the spiritual blessings in the heavenly realms belong to them,” etc. How can this NOT mean that Wilkins is saying that NECMs have a complete forgiveness of sins? After all, a complete forgiveness of sins implies perseverance, but perseverance should be one of “all” the blessings that Wilkins says these non-elect people receive, right?

So, it seems that your argument can go something like this: Wilkins clearly says all these blessings are temporary because the union with Christ that baptized non-elect people have is only temporary. But, when Wilkins says this and then follows it up by ALSO saying that “all” the benefits of Christ are theirs, etc., he puts himself into an absurdity. Wilkins cannot say both that there is a temporary, hence incomplete, forgiveness, and that ALL the benefits are their. Because if they really had all the benefits, then this would include a complete forgiveness.

Well, here’s what I think Wilkins is saying, and for the record I will just say that I agree (particularly in the article for the FV book) that greater clarity on this point, greater care to spell out exactly what he meant, could have saved some trouble. But, at the same time, nobody’s perfect, and I think he has clarified this point in the meantime. When Wilkins says that “all the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places” belong to everyone who is baptized, how can this only refer to a temporary status? Why isn’t perseverance included in the “all”? My answer, and I think I am being true to Wilkins here (I have actually sent him an e-mail asking him to verify this. I was tempted to wait until he responded to finish this comment but I’ve decided to go ahead and finish it before he answers.), is that the PRESENT TENSE is key. All the blessings ARE ours. But not all blessings can be ours IN THE PRESENT. What I mean is, there are many blessings that the Bible speaks of—just take going to Heaven as one quaint evangelicalized example—which nobody alive on earth “possesses” (again, note the present tense) right now. I am not in Heaven right now. I do not “enjoy” glorification right now. Because I am elect I enjoy the promise or the hope of glorification. But I do not have it right now.

So, what I think Wilkins means by “all that is Christ’s is ours” and similar phrases is that “all that is Christ’s that CAN BE OURS IN THE PRESENT is ours”. There is a very real sense in which all who are members of the covenant are under God’s promises of salvation, they have been brought “into Christ” which means that when God looks at them, in some sense He sees Christ and thus passes no judgment on them and tells them that they will be His forever if they believe. This gives us a great many benefits now in our present earthly life and it also gives us great hope for the full reality that is to come, but hope for the full reality is not the same as the actual full reality. That only comes at the consummation. Some of us will in fact not continue to believe (and the belief we had from the beginning was probably a different “kind” of belief anyway; I’m okay with saying that and I think Wilkins is too), and thus we will be destroyed as it was appointed for us from the beginning. We will no longer be “in Christ”, under His protection, and so when God looks at us we will again be in our sins and will perish. And, again, this is all how God wanted it to be in his eternal decree.

Look, this may not be the best way to use the word “all”. But remember Wilkins’ perspective on this: he thinks that Scripture uses the word “all” to describe blessings that go to people who don’t go to Heaven. Given that he thinks this is what Scripture says, he has to find a meaning for “all” that doesn’t include perseverance, and I think focusing on the PRESENT reality for people who are baptized is what allows him to do it. Again, this may not be the most natural use of “all”, but for us Calvinists Scripture is full of uses of all that require a “second look” to really understand. Besides, the issue here is not whether Wilkins’s use of “all” really conforms to what most of us think, it is just whether this usage allows him to be consistent with the Confession. His usage of a word could be really quirky—and again when people use words in really quirky ways I do think they have a responsibility to be clear about that fact, and Wilkins could have been a little quicker in being clear on this particular usage—but so long as what he means when he uses the word does not put him in opposition to the Confession, then he should be fine.

So, to put this in my now-infamous propositional way, when Wilkins says that phrases like (3), (4), or (5) can be applied to some non-elect people what he is actually teaching is something like this:

W4: All baptized people who are not under discipline are united to Christ temporarily during their earthly life.

W5: This temporary union with Christ described in W4 makes them partakers during the time of their union in all the benefits that such a union can bring during their earthly life.

And, finally, I would just add that from other things Wilkins has said I think he would also affirm:

W6: The way in which these temporary partakers in W5 partake of these benefits is not the same as the way in which people predestined to live with God eternally in glory partake of the same benefits.
Xon said,

January 12, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Okay…

So now should we pursue Prong 2 further (I assume you will want to respond, Lane?), or should we move on to Prong 1?
greenbaggins said,

January 13, 2007 at 11:16 am

Well, I think that prong 2 still needs some more clarification on both sides, although, if you want to start on prong 1 (which is the most important anyway, as we both acknowledge, I invite you to do so). But I will respond to your arguments here.

As I see your argument, you are basically saying that a temporary complete forgiveness is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, my argument that he teaches a temporary complete forgiveness is invalid by definition (and I am using “by definition” in the technical sense of the logical exclusion of a conclusion by the very definition of the terms). The form of your argument is valid. It remains to be seen whether the premises are valid.

Now, I believe that it is quite possible to believe in a temporary complete forgiveness, if one introduces a further term to the equation. This involves a closer definition of the two terms “temporary” and “complete.” Does the term “complete” need to involve a time aspect in order to be complete? I would argue that it does not. If one says that a person’s sins are completely forgiven, contingent on remaining in the covenant, then one is saying that all one’s sins are forgiven, but

Green Baggins

Rejoinder to Jonathan Barlow

66 Comments

Todd said,

Todd said,

barlow said,

barlow said,

adam said,

pduggie said,

Xon said,

Xon said,

Xon said,

greenbaggins said,

Stewart said,

greenbaggins said,

Stewart said,

Xon said,

greenbaggins said,

Stewart said,

greenbaggins said,

markhorne said,

greenbaggins said,

David Gadbois said,

markhorne said,

Xon said,

Todd said,

greenbaggins said,

Xon said,

greenbaggins said,

Xon said,

greenbaggins said,

Todd said,

greenbaggins said,

Xon said,

greenbaggins said,

Xon said,

Xon said,

Xon said,

greenbaggins said,

Xon said,

David Gadbois said,

Xon said,

David Gadbois said,

Xon said,

Xon said,

Xon said,

Xon said,

Xon said,

greenbaggins said,