Wilkins’s exam, part 9
January 9, 2007 at 9:44 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)
I think we have a very telling remark on page 15 of the exam just where Wilkins is on the distinction between the elect and the non-elect in the visible church. Here is the full quotation:
First, differs in its duration. (emphasis his) The elect person perseveres and remains in a state of grace until the end of his life. The non-elect eventually forsakes his faith and falls away from the state of grace. And second, it differes qualitatively. (emphasis his) The elect person’s forgiveness in time is an anticipation of his final vindication at the last judgment. The non-elect’s “forgiveness” is not. Although the non-elect person has standing for a time in the church which is (the) “realm” of the forgiven, his justification is not the judgment he will receive from God at the last day. Ultimately, it seems to me to be impossible systematically to define and enumerate what all these qualitative differences may be. (emphasis mine) To the degree that we can even identify any differences, we can only do so retrospectively, after an individual has moved significantly along the path of rebellion and unbelief toward apostasy.
Contrary to what Mark Horne has been saying in the comments to previous entries, Wilkins’s saying that there are differences between the elect and the non-elect is highly compromised by the italicized wording in the text. Impossible systematically to define? What in the world is the ordo salutis if not a systematic enumeration of the qualitative differences between the elect and the non-elect? Now, to be fair to Wilkins, he says “all these differences.” It is not as if he hasn’t listed any differences. However, he is by no means clear on whether the ordo salutis is only for the elect. He fudges on it, especially in Federal Vision, pp. 58ff. The ordo salutis is only for the elect, and that systematically and clearly defines the boundary between the elect and the non-elect. The last sentence of the quotation indicates why Wilkins has this confusion. He thinks that these differences have to be differences that one can see. However, Wilkins does not acknowledge that the Bible also speaks from God’s point of view, enumerating very clearly the differences between the elect and the non-elect. Here are some of the things that the elect have that the non-elect don’t have: eternal election, ultimate forgiveness of sins, justification, regeneration, adoption as sons, sanctification, glorification. According to Wilkins, saying this is impossible. Nevertheless, what I have said is precisely what the WCF says in 3.6. Impossible? Hardly.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
Stewart said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:23 am
“Contrary to what Mark Horne has been saying in the comments to previous entries, Wilkins’s saying that there are differences between the elect and the non-elect is highly compromised by the italicized wording in the text.”
This simply does not follow. He never denies that differences exist. Steve is merely saying that the differences can’t be KNOWN from a finite human perspective. You can’t simply look into someone’s heart and see where they stand in the ordo salutis chart. It simply doesn’t work that way. Moreover, an ordo salutis formulation doesn’t always help us when we encounter things like the Parable of the Sower. People who have faith for a time? Where do they fit in the chart? The Bible is way more dynamic than that. It doesn’t always conform to our neat little flow charts.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:33 am
Stewart, I would be relieved if that was what he meant. It simply isn’t. That he speaks from an ultimate perspective is clear from the words “his justification is not the judgment he will receive from God at the last day.” He then starts his next sentence with the word “ultimately.” Furthermore, the question that the Presbytery asked him was an ordo salutis question: “Do you believe that those who ultimately fall away ever truly possessed forgiveness of sins?” This is an ordo question, in fact, a justification question (forgiveness is a large part of justification). For your criticism to work, the question would have had to have been about the Bible’s teaching specifically. The question was one directed toward Wilkins’s understanding of the category of forgiveness. He responded with this vague boundary-lessening answer that simply didn’t answer the question.
JWDS said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:34 am
Wilkins happens to agree with your list of what the truly elect have that the “temporally elect,” in his terms, do not have: in the quote you use, he specifically refers to perseverance, and on pp. 15-16, he mentions the following items: those who fall away never truly possessed eternal life; the “forgiveness” (his quotes) received by an apostate is not identical to that received by the elect (here he uses the term in Westminster sense); no elect person can lose his salvation. Notice that when applying terms to those who will aposticize, he uses quotation marks, apparently to indicate that one could use the term only in a certain sense, but not apply the intended substance– strengthened by the use of a term like “quasi-salvation” and the constant reiteration of the phrase “in some sense.” Also, in his comment about us identifying the differences, he seems to be talking about a particular individual, not overall doctrine, and there his point is certainly correct–we can’t, at a given moment, see the qualitative nature of a person’s forgiveness, justification, regeneration, etc., since a true member of the elect may backslide terribly, yet still possess those things more truly than an eventual apostate who currently looks fine and dandy.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:36 am
BOQ Steve is merely saying that the differences can’t be KNOWN from a finite human perspective. EOQ I already acknowledged this in the post, if you read it again more carefully this time. This is where I acknowledged that: “He thinks that these differences have to be differences that one can see.” The question, though was about ultimate differences between elect and non-elect with regard to forgiveness. He waffled.
JWDS said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:41 am
And on your comment 2, he answered that question directly:
Do you believe that those who ultimately fall away ever truly possessed eternal life?
No, if they did, they would not have fallen away.
Do you believe that those who ultimately fall away ever truly possessed forgiveness of sins?
If you mean…that they had forgiveness of sins in the same sense that those who are elect unto salvation have, then the answer is, no.
So, in terms of the ordo, which applies only to the elect, he answered the question decisively in the negative.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:47 am
JWDS, he blurs the distinction, however, between the elect and the non-elect at the bottom of page 15, where he says that salvation is a relationship that is “fluid and dynamic.” I take this to mean “losable.” He says “If we break the marriage covenant, he will divorce us.” But what that shows is that we were never really married to god in the first place. Rank Arminianism here. Again, when he defines the sense in which elect and non-elect have the same standing (pg. 16), he defines the difference there only in terms of duration. This makes the covenant dependent on us and on our perseverance.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:51 am
JWDS, I do not allow anonymous commenters on my blog. Would you please identify yourself by name?
Anne Ivy said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:52 am
What forgiveness, whether enclosed in quotation marks or not, does an apostate receive, exactly? Traditional Reformed doctrine says either one’s sins are forgiven or they are not, not that there are two different types of forgiveness.
After mentally running through various options, these seem to be the only two viable possibilities I can think of:
* Forgiveness of those sins committed prior to coming to faith in Christ (which, if I’ve understood correctly, the FV teaches an apostate does), but not the sins committed afterward.
* Temporal forgiveness, so that temporal, divine discipline won’t occur because of the sins.
Actually, I had thought of another but then the trash truck went by and distracted me, so I forgot it. Hate when that happens!
JWDS said,
January 9, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Sorry, I hadn’t intended to be anonymous, since I usually sign my emails to family and friends with my initials. Joshua W.D. Smith, M.A. 2002 from Westminster Seminary in California, member in good standing at Trinity OPC in Oregon.
When he says salvation, however, he points out that it can be view in three tenses: future, past, and present. That means that “in some sense” it is fluid and dynamic, since our relation to the future is “in some sense” fluid, from our perspective (i.e., the covenantal one).
I think there is a sort of “covenantal forgiveness,” which is the performative declaration in baptism and by the minister’s declaration of absolution. We are to to receive as brothers those who have been forgiven, right? But we cannot know whether anyone else has been truly and finally forgiven and is thus part of the truly elect. So, on what basis do we accept others whose decretal and eschatological state we don’t know? On the basis of the public “forgiveness” declared in the church, not on the basis of a private judgment of charity. If the church has declared someone forgiven and a member of Christ, I need to accept that judgment. But what if the person turns out to be apostate? Was the judgment of the church false? Was the baptism a lie? No, since it is established by Christ. Rather, it is the apostate individual who is false and lying–all the blame and falseness is laid at his own door, not at the door of the church.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 4:17 pm
If you even wanted to create this category of “covenantal forgiveness,” it could have zero overlap with justificatory forgiveness, because the latter happens *only* to the elect, whereas the former (which hasn’t been proven to exist by anyone, least of all Wilkins) could happen to the non-elect. Why invent such a category? It isn’t permanent, and it isn’t complete, and can therefore contribute precisely nothing to anyone’s assurance. A useless category entirely.
Anne Ivy said,
January 9, 2007 at 4:33 pm
It sort of sounds as if ‘covenantal forgiveness’ is essentially a ‘judgment of charity’ applied to everyone in the visible church.
Which would be rather ironic, considering how that same judgment of charity is rejected when it comes to the writers of the epistles taking as a working hypothesis that the church members are indeed regenerate.
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Covenantal forgiveness is how justificatory forgiveness is communicated to the elect.
“repent and be baptized, washing away your sins” is covenantal forgiveness. Paul belives the gospel message contained therein, and receives justifcation privately, but the historical event that he can remember is the covenantal one.
Stewart said,
January 9, 2007 at 4:57 pm
“hy invent such a category? It isn’t permanent, and it isn’t complete, and can therefore contribute precisely nothing to anyone’s assurance.”
Yup, because we all know that the ordo salutis is what really provides us with assurance.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Paul, that’s confessional how?
Stewart, the ordo salutis does provide assurance. How can it not provide assurance in the light of Romans 8? Election to eternal salvation provides assurance that God will *never* desert me. Your sarcasm is way off, Stewart. As I have said repeatedly before, the means of grace also provide us with assurance. We get assurance from many places, and yes, baptism is one of those. But to assert that the ordo doesn’t flies in the face of not only Scripture but also the WCF.
JWDS said,
January 9, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Why could it have zero overlap? The grace that is the offer of the gospel has significant overlap, as does the grace of belonging to the church and receiving the sacraments. “Covenantal” here means “having reference to the visible covenant community,” and those thing that have said reference do overlap. Only, for the truly elect, they are efficacious unto full salvation, while to others they are only temporary blessings, the rejection of which will bring greater condemnation at the end.
Why create such a category? Two reasons: First, it then allows us to deal directly with passages like Matt. 18:22-35, and not cut and fold such passages to fit the ordo salutis. I maintained in another comment that your reading of that parable ignores Jesus’ explicit teaching. It also allows us to make sense of Heb. 6:4-6 & 10:29, in which those who have been sanctified (here meaning consecration, not moral development) and are partakers of the Holy Spirit can fall away. Apostates really had something, some blessing of God that makes their ingratitude even more blameworthy. This lead to the second: it opposes presumption, just as Paul does in Romans 11 and 1 Cor. 10. The Romans really were part of the tree…but then the Jews had been, too, just as fully. The Corinthians drank from Christ…but the Jews did, too, just as fully. So, just because it doesn’t help with assurance does not mean it is useless. Why is assurance the only thing important here?
Here’s the difference between “covenantal election” or whatever, and the judgment of charity, at least as I see it. If charity is viewed as our love to the unlovely or characterized by 1 Cor 13 (keeping no records of wrong ,etc.), then it seems to be our own personal view of someone. But it isn’t! Christ in His sacraments and His word declares this person forgiven and united with Him (although these things are conditional in a non-meritorious sense). It’s not charity to believe what the Lord has said through His appointed means, but rather our duty in loyalty to the Lord. This may also resolve a common question I have heard in relation to 1 Cor 13–”isn’t it foolish to believe all things and hope all things?” Well, no, it isn’t foolish to believe God’s own declaration about a person, nor to hope based on those things. I don’t know if this how most of the major FV phrase it, but it is my own thinking. So, I suppose you could call it a judgment of charity, but I prefer to emphasize Christ’s declaration through His appointed means rather than my own judgment. And I may be inaccurate in my view of the judgment of charity–I’m happy to be corrected on that if I have misunderstood that idea in the Reformed tradition.
Anne Ivy said,
January 9, 2007 at 6:25 pm
The ‘judgment of charity’ came from a post of a couple of days ago, in response to the theory that since Paul was given to addressing his epistles to the “saints” at a church, and it was highly unlikely every single person sitting in that church at the time was regenerate and destined for glory, everything Paul wrote about his readers/listeners must apply to both regenerate and unregenerate alike.
It was pointed out that the traditional view is that Paul was employing a ‘judgment of charity’, charitably assuming everyone was regenerate.
The FV adherents reject this, however.
It just struck me as a bit ironic that when it comes to forgiveness of sins - surely the hallmark of a believer, as the angel told Joseph “you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” - we’re to both assume everyone addressed by Paul as “saints” had their sins forgiven, while not believing Paul himself addressed them as saints who had had their sins forgiven.
And that is doubtless a very mixing, muddling sentence, but the more I try to fix it the worse it gets, so I’ll just let it stand. ;^)
Xon said,
January 9, 2007 at 6:41 pm
“Here are some of the things that the elect have that the non-elect don’t have: eternal election, ultimate forgiveness of sins, justification, regeneration, adoption as sons, sanctification, glorification.”
I think we can all agree pretty obviously that Wilkins would agree with the first two, so let’s focus on the last five. Put this in propositional form, defining the particular usage of the term made in each case, and show that Westminster says “A” while Wilkins says “not A”.
So, regarding regeneration for instance, what is the doctrine Wilkins teaches which you think contradicts Westminster? Is it like this?:
Wilkins: “Some people who are not elect are regenerated.”
Westminster: “No people who are not elect are regenerated.”
This would be a clear contradiction, assuming all the terms have the same meaning throughout. But they might not (they might, but we have to look and see). We’d have to look at the way Wilkins defines the key terms here to see what Wilkins is actually meaning. We should start by looking at Westminster’s definitions, plugging those in for “elect” and “regenerated”, and then seeing if we can find Wilkins denying the proposition as it looks when those things are spelled out. (Putting \/ around the spelled-out definitions of the terms.)
Westminster’s proposition would look something like this, then: “No people who are not \predestined by God to live eternally in glory/ [i.e. "elect"]” \have a new way of looking at the world that enables them to grow by God’s grace into full salvation/. [i.e. "are regenerate"]”
(My translation of “are regenerate” is verrry shaky, so please help me out and make it better. Westy doesn’t really define “regenerate” that I can see…it often seems to just be a synonym for “elect”, actually. Of course, just b/c the Confession doesn’t stipulate a definition doesn’t mean the word doesn’t have one. We just have to infer it based on the context of the Confession’s usage of the word (assuming the Confession is consistent here, which I imagine it is). In any case, though, I’m having trouble inferring what that usage is exactly. So I admit I need some help here.)
Now, where in Wilkins’ writings does he say something that means: “Some of those predestined by God to live eternally in glory have a new way of looking at the world that enables them to grow by God’s grace into full salvation.” ??
Where does Wilkins say this? (He doesn’t have to say the exact words; he just has to say something that, when the usage of whatever words he uses are understood, contains this meaning.) Anything other than this is not in contradiction to the Confession.
(But we still need to plug in the proper definition of “are regenerate” into Wilkins’ and the Confessions’ propositions, of course. What I have above is just an first try.)
Anne Ivy said,
January 9, 2007 at 7:42 pm
What’s gives, um, interest and depth and texture to the whole debate is how it’s raging on multiple levels.
Can Pastor Wilkins’ theological theories be squared with Scripture?
Can they be squared with the WCF?
Can they be squared with the PCA’s traditional interpretation of the WCF?
These are three very distinct debates, but we (and when I say “we” I mean “y’all”….KIDDING! I am including myself, too) tend to get them as tangled as cooked spaghetti.
Xon wrote: “Westy doesn’t really define “regenerate” that I can see…it often seems to just be a synonym for “elect”, actually. Of course, just b/c the Confession doesn’t stipulate a definition doesn’t mean the word doesn’t have one.”
From what I’ve gathered, based upon years of hanging around with PCA members, is that the PCA’s accepted, traditional interpretation of the WCF has “regenerate” being synonymous with “elect.”
Does this mean the two terms necessarily are as stuck together as conjoined twins?
No, certainly not.
But it does mean it’s perfectly possible that while Pastor Wilkins’ theological theory might be able “in some sense” (oh, I do crack myself up) to be aligned with the WCF, it doesn’t inevitably follow that it can be aligned with the PCA’s WCF, if you see what I mean.
Presumably there’s a reason for the myriad “Reformed” denominations, after all. I’d think surely one of those reasons would be that Reformed Denomination Charley thinks the WCF should be read this-a-way, while Reformed Denomination Donald says heavens to Betsy, no…the WCF should be read that-a-way.
Meaning somebody’s interpretation of the WCF could fit with Reformed Denomination Charley, or Reformed Denomination Donald, or neither of them, come to that.
Not that anyone cares, nor should they, but from my reading of Pastor Wilkins’ theological theories, while I’d not label them in any way unchristian (which might get me pounced on by a few people), they don’t square with the traditional, PCA interpretation of the WCF (which is where the others pile on).
Rich Leino said,
January 10, 2007 at 5:05 am
Lane,
Great posts. I don’t know if you ever check out the PuritanBoard but we’ve been discussing this as well here: Wilkin’s Presbyterian exam examined by Rick Phillips
We also have a very useful discussion contrasting the FV with the historic use of the term “Conditional Election” here: Conditional Election - Where does FV differ from Historical Reformed Usage?.
I have a question for you but you don’t have a contact form. Can you contact me on my contact form at SoliDeoGloria.com when you get a free moment?
Thanks,
Rich Leino
LtCol, USMC
Okinawa, Japan
Xon said,
January 10, 2007 at 6:53 am
That’s the thing, Anne. It is one thing to argue that there are lots of Reformed denominations, each with their own flavor, but all within the pale, and that Wilkins simply isn’t the PCA flavor. I think it’s a mistake to encourage such tight denominational divisions, personally, but I get where you are coming from there. But it is something else entirely to say that “May God have mercy on their souls” about FV proponents, as the RPCUS did in 2002, or that Wilkins is actually denying “sola fide” (which would make him un-Protestant altogether, and which is something that lots of internet tribunals and Presbytery reports have said), or to pronounce anathemas upon him for his views. If Wilkins were booted from the PCA, I have no doubt that he would still recommend the PCA to others–say if one of his congregants was moving out of town. But would Lane, or David G., say this about a FV church? I don’t think so; they don’t just want Wilkins to leave the b/d he’s not the right ‘flavor’ of Reformed–they want him to leave so that he will easily be identifiable as not Reformed at all, and possibly not Christian at all. (This latter clause is certainly the rhetoric of some, but I don’t know if Lane or David G. would go that far.)
Anne Ivy said,
January 10, 2007 at 7:07 am
Just so, Xon. So far, at least, I’ve not read anything from Pastor Wilkins that would cause me to stagger backwards, grab my throat and croak, “Good heavens! The man’s not even a Christian!”
The Reformed part might be a leetle more dicey, as so far’s I’m aware the traditional Reformed view has always been God has His sheep and God has His goats and never the twain shall mix, while Pastor Wilkins appears to mix them with wild abandon. I suppose one could recognize a new branch of Reformedom, though. Can’t see why that wouldn’t be possible.
To be frank, though, he really shouldn’t cling to the PCA’s doorframe as he’s been doing in his efforts to stay in, since his theological theories simply do not square with what the PCA has - rightly or wrongly - traditionally held to be true.
Xon said,
January 10, 2007 at 7:47 am
In any case, Anne, I appreciate your thoughts here. But I do think it is a mistake to make your third question “Can [Wilkins' views] be squared with the PCA’s traditional interpretation of the WCF?” an issue in this debate. This would be denomninationalism on steroids, and would violate (ironically) the very idea of being confessional. If ministers in the PCA are required not only to believe the confession, but to believe a particular interpretation of the confession (when other interpretations are possible), then we are binding our ministers to something extra-confessional all in the name of making sure they are confessional. Of course, if you think the PCA’s interpretation is the only interpretation, then this problem is removed, but your third question is also eliminated as it becomes equivalent to the second question, “Can [Wilkins' views] be squared with the WCF (which only the PCA properly interprets)?” It seems to me that, in this world where the Christian faith itself is poorly understood by so many and in which there are already several traditions within the Christian faith, that people as close as FVers and “TR”s actually are should all be thought of as in the same “big tent” Reformed tradition, rather than forcing them to divide up into different denominations because of their differences.
As to regeneration, you said this:
“From what I’ve gathered, based upon years of hanging around with PCA members, is that the PCA’s accepted, traditional interpretation of the WCF has “regenerate” being synonymous with “elect.”
Does this mean the two terms necessarily are as stuck together as conjoined twins?
No, certainly not.
But it does mean it’s perfectly possible that while Pastor Wilkins’ theological theory might be able “in some sense” (oh, I do crack myself up) to be aligned with the WCF, it doesn’t inevitably follow that it can be aligned with the PCA’s WCF, if you see what I mean.”
Well, I don’t quite see what you mean here, because if we simply define “regenerate” as “elect”, then the Westminster proposition I proposed earlier would look like this:
Westminster: “No people who are not \predestined by God to live eternally in glory/ [i.e. “elect”]” are \predestined by God to live eternally in glory./ [i.e. "are regenerate"].”
This is a tautology, and is obviously true. And there’s no way that we can find anything in Wilkins that is contrary to this. A contrary statement from Wilkins would have to contain the meaning of this:
Wilkins: “Some people who are not \predestined by God to live eternally in glory/ are \predestined by God to live eternally in glory./”
On this interpretation, Westy is saying “No things that are not P are P,” while Wilkins is saying “Some things that are not P are P.” But there is no way Wilkins ever says anything like this. See my problem?
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 9:20 am
“To be frank, though, he really shouldn’t cling to the PCA’s doorframe as he’s been doing in his efforts to stay in, since his theological theories simply do not square with what the PCA has - rightly or wrongly - traditionally held to be true.”
But his own Presbytery has, so far, not asked him to leave. So far, that’s what matters. So far.
Anne Ivy said,
January 10, 2007 at 10:03 am
That’s true. Can’t argue that logic.
Of course, there’s the “but his presbytery said he’s fine, ergo, he’s fine…no fair criticizing the decision of his presbytery” argument that’s been widely and vociferously made.
Here’s something I don’t quite grasp about Presbyterian polity, and perhaps y’all can explain it to me.
Let’s say there’s a Presbyterian denomination called the Perfectly Presbyterian Church, or PPC. One of the presbyteries is the Greater Tuna presbytery (you, Todd, and Lane, will doubtless take the allusion), and one of the churches in that presbytery is Little Dickens Presbyterian, pastored by TE Murfman.
It has come to the ears of the Powers That Be of the PPC there might be a problem with the teaching of TE Murfman. Upon investigating, the PTB of the PPC decide a formal scrutiny is warranted, so instruct the Greater Tuna presbytery to undertake the chore.
After due time the report of the Greater Tuna presbytery is sent to the PPC; in it the Greater Tuna presbytery assures the PPC that after a thorough examination of TE Murfman, it finds him to be ducky doodles, doctrinally speaking.
Which would be reassuring were it not for the fact the report makes fairly clear that the reason the Greater Tuna presbytery thinks TE Murfman’s theology is fine is because the members of the presbytery think it’s fine. IOW, the doctrinal oddities that triggered the examination in the first place are not regarded as a problem by the Greater Tuna presbytery. The presbytery didn’t criticize TE Murfman because it agrees with him.
Never mind whether this fits the AAPC situation….most likely it doesn’t….but taking it as it’s written, what should the response of the PPC be? Personally, I’d think if the PTB of the PPC discover the teaching it considers to be aberrant is in the Greater Tuna presbytery, it would toss out the report’s findings and call on the carpet the members of the presbytery that wrote it*.
I don’t think the PPC would be required to accept whatever the Greater Tuna presbytery says, just because it’s a presbytery saying it.
But then, I’ve never been Presbyterian, so what do I know?
* Moving away from the fictitious example and back to real life, one thing that has rather surprised me is that if the PCA essentially dismissed the LA presbytery’s report for giving a thumbs-up to stuff the PCA would have expected it to condemn, I’d have thought the PCA SJC would worry about TE Wilkins later, and instead concentrate their efforts on rooting out perceived error at the presbytery level. What’s the point of chasing after the pastor of an individual church if the troublesome errors have reached the presbytery level?
It’s quite likely just my deficient understanding of Presbyterian policy, but that has seemed a little odd to me.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 10:14 am
No, you’re absolutely right. FV proponents have hid behind “presbytery exoneration” for quite awhile now, when there are some extenuating factors. First of all, the Standing Judicial Commission has authority over the Wilkins case now, *not* the LA Presbytery. So, Wilkins defenders can no longer hide behind the “LAP has exonerated him, therefore everyone ought to be just hunky-dory with it.” Secondly, AAPC is the largest church in the LAP, so that plays a role as well (that played a key role in another presbytery as well, where an absolute wolf wouldn’t even get touched by the presbytery, just because he happened to be pastoring the largest church in the presbytery: totally unrelated case to FV, but the parallel in politics is there). Thirdly, *several* presbyteries are quite concerned with what Wilkins is saying and doing. If FV proponents want to say that the LAP ha exonerated him, then the other side can point to at least three or four presbyteries that simply don’t agree with the LAP’s exoneration. This can only be solved in the Standing Judicial Commission (which is the Supreme Court of the PCA). The FV proponents have never wanted this stuff to get to the SJC for several reasons: 1. there are no FV proponents on the SJC; 2. more exposure to public scrutiny is always bad for any movement. 3. They think it’s okay for several presbyteries to be at complete loggerheads. They think this because of their view of “good-faith subscription,” a misnomer if there ever was one. What amazes me is the inconsistency for how FV proponents plead: some of them will say that there is no FV movement (trying to deflect criticism of the movement), and then in the very next breath say that “Well, Leithart was exonerated, Horne was exonerated, Wilkins was exonerated, what more can be done?” As if it *was* a movement. The logic there goes like this: if one was exonerated, they should all be exonerated: can’t we all just get along? Very inconsistent.
Xon said,
January 10, 2007 at 10:56 am
Anne, your questions are interesting. The LA Presbytery contains a number of men who do NOT agree with Wilkins on these FVish issues, but nonetheless they found his theology (with which they do not agree) to be okay under the Confessional boundaries. So your hypothetical doesn’t match the reality, which is something you were wondering.
As to what a Presby denom can/should do if an entire presbytery is full of men who agree with doctrines which the denom as a whole finds pernicious, this is (to my understanding) what things like the SJC and debates at General Assembly are for. In other words, other presbyteries within the denom can accuse the other presbytery of being unorthodox, of allowing unorthodox theology, something like that. And then the debate ensues.
The problem in this particular debate is that it is unclear that Wilkins’ views ARE out of bounds with the Confession (particularly regarding any issue that would render Wilkins’ views something other than “Reformed/Calvinistic”), and the fact that his own presbytery, which is not chock full of sympathizers, has exonerated him should count for something. Of course the presbyteries are not absolute, and I don’t know anyone who says they are, but we do hold “local” government in high esteem in the PCA. It is quite irregular to tell a mixed body of men, theologically speaking, that they screwed up their non-required examination of one of their own ministers. It would be nice if we had really strong evidence before we made such an accusation. And, of course, the discussions on this blog are evidence enough that just how strong the evidence actually is is a matter of some dispute. Which isn’t to say that the FVers are right; maybe the evidence against Wilkins really is overwhelming and we just don’t see it for some reason. But given the way FVers see things, given that they don’t find the evidence convincing, it should not be at all surprising that they are worried about the way the SJC has proceeded re: Wilkins.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 11:03 am
Xon, it may be unclear to you whether Wilkins’s views are out of accord with the WCF (I would actually argue that you think that they are clearly in accord with the WS). But I am suffering from no such doubt about Wilkins’s views. They are out of accord with the WCF.
Dispute does not indicate lack of clarity. That is a fallacy also. Something could be quite clearly out of accord with doctrinal orthodoxy, and yet debate ensues, sometimes violent debate. Witness the Arian heresy in the time of Athanasius. It was clear to Athanasius all the time what the truth was. And yet, it sometimes looked as if he stood alone. Debate in that case certainly did not indicate lack of clarity. Nor do I think it indicates that in this case. Wilkins’s critics are not suffering from self-doubt in this. I haven’t seen one instance of it.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 11:08 am
“Wilkins’s critics are not suffering from self-doubt in this.”
That’s for sure!
Anne Ivy said,
January 10, 2007 at 11:19 am
But - just for the sake of debate, alright? - let’s say the FV is a problem….I’m unclear as to how it’d ever be corrected if the SJC sat on its hands and did nothing, pointing to the clean-bill-of-doctrinal-health given to AAPC by the LAP, and never mind the squawkings of other presbyteries.
I mean, this time it’s the FV, but what if it were something completely different, such as a subtle change regarding the dual nature of Christ?
Here’s a TE protesting he’s absolutely in accord with both Scripture and the WCF, and his presbytery clears him.
But you read him, Xon, and are horrified. Absolutely horrified. Would you decide that since the error is subtle - maybe you’re just not reading him properly? maybe he didn’t explain himself well? - and his presbytery doesn’t see a problem, well, leave it alone?
On one side there are those shrieking “Witch hunt! It’s a witch hunt!”, while on the other side there are those howling “The fox is in the hen house! Get it out!”
If multiple presbyteries do see a problem with the LAP’s tacit acceptance of the FV, what should they be expected to do - other than crossing their collective fingers and ignoring it - but complain to the SJC?
Witch hunts are certainly bad, but I’d think making it so that any presbytery can become a safe haven for significant error (whether FV or not…I’m trying to broaden the scope here) would be worse. I’m puzzled as to what the point of the denomination’s existence would be, if it can’t grab error by the neck and give it a good shaking.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 11:56 am
Anne, again you put your finger on the nub of the issue. Fortunately, the SJC is doing something. They directed the LAP to re-examine Wilkins. The SJC then has a number of options open to them. They can examine Wilkins themselves, or they can simply rule on Wilkins’s case by itself. They have the authority to defrock Wilkins if they think he is out of accord with the WS. They also have the authority to discipline LAP if they think it necessary. Dr. Aquila is the chair of the SJC. He is not favorable to the FV. I think the result will be positive for the PCA.
Anne Ivy said,
January 10, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Thing is, this sort of kerfluffle, though unpleasant to live through, is precisely how doctrine - whether of The Church In General, eg. at Nicea, or at the denominational level - is honed, toned, and sharpened.
Maybe I’m just late to the party but I, for one, had never considered that because Paul addressed his letters to the “saints” even though not all of those reading or hearing them would be regenerate, it could be argued that everything he said about “saints” was meant to be applicable to the unregenerate, too.
Having considered it, I’ve rejected it, but still….got to give Pastor Wilkins credit for thinking outside the box. It might be wrong but it’s certainly an intriguing notion.
And to be fair, I can sort of see the point of it. Mind, I can “see the point” of all sorts of incorrect doctrines, such as the RCC’s transubstantiation (having been RC)….don’t agree with it, but I see where they get it from.
The PCA’s never had cause to weigh this particular theory of Pastor Wilkins’ ‘ere now because - so far’s I know - it’s never come up before.
As I said, though, that’s how doctrine is refined, isn’t it?
Xon said,
January 10, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“Xon, it may be unclear to you whether Wilkins’s views are out of accord with the WCF (I would actually argue that you think that they are clearly in accord with the WS). But I am suffering from no such doubt about Wilkins’s views. They are out of accord with the WCF.
Dispute does not indicate lack of clarity. That is a fallacy also.”
And I understand all that, Lane. Notice what I said: from the FVers perspective, since they don’t think the evidence that Wilkins is out of accord with WS is very good, it is disturbing to see the local decision of the LAP put under such scrutiny in a denomination that claims the name presbyterian. But, obviously, from the anti-FV perspective, where the evidence is thought to be clear, it is not disturbing at all but is simply must what be done. I don’t disagree with this at all.
We do have ways of dealing with heresy, and it’s good we have them. It’s best when the people making the accusations of heresy are actually correct. I don’t think they are in this case, but you disagree. Hey, discussion continues.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I agree with this post, Xon (that’s gotta be some kind of first!). What I didn’t agree with was this: “it is unclear that Wilkins’ views ARE out of bounds with the Confession.” Critics think that it is anything *but* unclear. You seemed to be saying objectively that it was unclear. It was that to which I objected.
Xon said,
January 10, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Okay, I see, I only meant “arguably”, not objectively. I tried to make that clear, but it is hard to give a “state of the debate” account without sounding like you’re favoring your own side. I failed, I guess. Oops.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Fair enough.
David Gadbois said,
January 11, 2007 at 2:49 am
“On this interpretation, Westy is saying “No things that are not P are P,” while Wilkins is saying “Some things that are not P are P.” But there is no way Wilkins ever says anything like this. See my problem?”
Your problem is that you essentially won’t see any contradiction in Wilkins and Westminster unless he states it explicitly.
But again, look at the way his system function, in substance. If Westminster states that ONLY the elect are justified, for instance, and applied the ordo salutis, and Wilkins comes along and says that some non-elect covenant members are “justified”, and cannot distinguish between the two definitions of “justification” other than 1. formally, but not substantively, talking about a qualitative/ontological “distinction” in the abstract and 2. can’t get beyond durational differences, then we have still not advanced beyond one cat that dies as a kitten and one that dies as an adult. It is still the same animal, and same sense of justification.
Federal Vision Index « Green Baggins said,
March 19, 2007 at 2:06 pm
[...] exam, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9, part 10, part 11, part [...]