Wilkins’s exam, part 10
January 10, 2007 at 10:29 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)
On page 16, we see one of the worst examples of shoddy scholarship in the entire exam. Being faced with the explicit language of LC 68, which most certainly does refer to non-elect covenant members, Wilkins says that it does not refer to them! Here is the LC 68: “Are the elect only effectually called? A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.” And here is what Wilkins says that LC 68 means: “LC 68 speaks of the ‘elect’ as the only ones who are ‘effectually called.’ In every case (speaking of WCF 17.1, LC 79 and LC 68), the standards are not referring to apostates and what might be true of them prior to their apostasy, but they are speaking only and exclusively of those who are chosen to final salvation.” Say what??? Every one of the FV proponents who have debate with me on this blog have said that the “common operations” refer to what the apostates receive before they apostatize. Wilkins does not want LC 68 to be speaking about apostates prior to their apostasy, because of that last clause “do never truly come to Jesus Christ.” That doesn’t help his case very much, does it? Now, to put a more charitable light on things, maybe he didn’t read LC 68 carefully enough. I think I remember him somewhere using the similar language in WCF 10.4 of apostates before they apostatize (illegitimately there, too, since they “never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved” there either). It is almost identical language here in LC 68. But in any case, he is totally off here. Of whom can the LC 68 be speaking if not of covenant members before they apostatize? They are outwardly called (as opposed to effectually called), have common operations of the Spirit, neglect and have contempt for the grace of God (it never truly enters them at all), and do never truly come to Christ. Sounds like apostates to me.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 10:44 am
“In every case (speaking of WCF 17.1, LC 79 and LC 68), the standards are not referring to apostates and what might be true of them prior to their apostasy, but they are speaking only and exclusively of those who are chosen to final salvation.”
Isn’t Wilkins speaking of effectual calling here? In every case in which the standards speak of effectual calling, they are not referring to apostates and what might be true of them prior to their apostasy, but they are speaking only and exclusively of those who are chosen to final salvation. I don’t think he’s denying that the common operations apply to apostates.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 10:47 am
As if the WCF is speaking *only* about those effectually called? Since when would that be a valid intepretation of LC 68? After all, the WCF can only be speaking about one thing at a time. It couldn’t possibly be speaking about the effectually called, and then what’s true about those who aren’t. Everyone who is not effectually called *never truly comes to Christ.* Period.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 10:53 am
“As if the WCF is speaking *only* about those effectually called?”
No. Wilkins is only saying that when the WS say effectually called, it’s talking about the eternally elect. That’s all.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 10:59 am
That’s not what Wilkins said. I will quote again, “in every case, the standards are not referring to apostates and what might be true of them prior to their apostasy, but they are speaking only and exclusively of those who are chosen to final salvation.” It is true that effectual calling applies only to these people. But Wilkins does not acknowledge that the LC 68 is also talking about apostates who have not apostatized yet. His statement becomes much clearer down near the bottom of the page: “The Confession, because it doesn’t address these passages directly or deal with the issue of apostasy thoroughly is of little help to us at these points.” He shows absolutely zero recognition that LC 68 is talking about apostasy, when, in fact, the majority of the question deals with the question of apostasy. Only the first clause of the answer deals with the elect. The entire rest of the question deals with those who have “common operations of the Spirit.” The fact that the WCF says that they never truly come to Christ is quite an embarrassment to Wilkins, I think.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 11:02 am
In every case of what?
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 11:02 am
“But Wilkins does not acknowledge that the LC 68 is also talking about apostates who have not apostatized yet.”
Why would he need to ackowledge that? He’s talking about effectual calling.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 11:05 am
“The fact that the WCF says that they never truly come to Christ is quite an embarrassment to Wilkins, I think.”
In the exam, he affirms this language explicity.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 11:53 am
Why do you keep thinking this is an argument? I have said over and over and over again that *though he affirms the WCF in words* he denies it with his theology. So for you to say that he affirms this language is irrelevant.
Secondly, Wilkins affirms that those who are not eternally elect are really and truly united with Christ, when LC 68 says that only the elect are truly united to Christ. At best, this is confusing of Wilkins to say. At worst, it is duplicitous.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 12:14 pm
But it’s silly to speculate that this line “embarrasses” him when he quotes it happily.
Anne Ivy said,
January 10, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I daresay Lane meant it in the “I’m embarrassed for him” way.
Heaven knows I’ve had cause to grumble “You just embarrassed yourself thoroughly” to various of my children throughout the years, even though they usually didn’t think they’d done any such thing.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 2:13 pm
At any rate, it seems clear that Lane has misread Wilkins.
“in every case, the standards are not referring to apostates and what might be true of them prior to their apostasy, but they are speaking only and exclusively of those who are chosen to final salvation.”
In every case of what? In every case of what he’s talking about in that section, in every case in which the standards speak of effectual calling. He’s not offering commentary on the rest of LC 68.
Context, context, context.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 2:17 pm
You’re twisting language here, Todd. “In every case” clearly refers to each of the three cases of what the WS are saying in WCF 17.1, LC 79, and LC 68. He clearly says that these three places in the WS are not referring to the apostate, when they clearly are.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 2:24 pm
““In every case” clearly refers to each of the three cases of what the WS are saying in WCF 17.1, LC 79, and LC 68.”
But he’s not commenting on these questions/sections as whole, just certain parts; for LC 68, just its use of effectual calling.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 2:30 pm
He did not make one single indication that he was limiting his scope merely to the first clause of LC 68. You are completely artificially limiting his scope there. He says point-blank that the WCF are not dealing with the questions of apostasy.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 2:36 pm
“He did not make one single indication that he was limiting his scope merely to the first clause of LC 68.”
Except for quoting only from the first clause, and then commenting.
“You are completely artificially limiting his scope there.”
Only if noticing how he has defined his scope is an artificial limitation.
You quoted it correctly enough in the original post:
“LC 68 speaks of the ‘elect’ as the only ones who are ‘effectually called.’ In every case (speaking of WCF 17.1, LC 79 and LC 68), the standards are not referring to apostates and what might,…”
But here is the fuller version, as formatting mostly preserved:
—————————————————–
As I have shown, the Confession in each of these places speaks from a decretal perspective.
– WCF 17.1 speaks of those who are “effectually called” and the Confession defines “effectual calling” as the gift of “saving faith” which cannot die out or be lost but which perseveres to the end.
– WLC #79 speaks of “true believers” (as opposed to temporary believers or hypocrites) as those who have the “unchangeable love of God and his decree” to give them perseverance — i.e., it is referring to those who are “kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.”
– LC #68 speaks of the “elect” as the only ones who are “effectually called.”
Thus, in every case, the standards are not referring to apostates and what might be true of them prior to their apostasy, but they are speaking only and exclusively of those who are chosen to final salvation. My concerns are not with these statements of the Confession with which I wholeheartedly agree.
————————————-
In every case of what he has quoted and referred to explicitly. He’s just not making reference to the rest of LC 68.
Xon said,
January 10, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Right, Todd, this seems like the clear reading of Wilkins’ words. He is discussing what WS says about the effectually called, “in every case” where it mentions them. And it always makes it clear that only the elect are effectually called.
As for your argument about Wilkins being inconsistent, despite what he says in affirmation of the Standards at some point or other, this should be very easy to show using my propositional proposals mentioned in various comments now on this very blog. Can you please give us two propositions, the first of which is something Westminster means and the second of which is something Wilkins means, and where the two propositions are contraries? That is, stripping away debated terms, and subbing in the definition of the usages of those terms, can you give me an “A” which Westminster asserts and then show me where Wilkins says something that means “not A”?
You say it’s obvious, and that you have no doubt he does this. So,what is the A that WS says and the not A that Wilkins says?
Xon said,
January 10, 2007 at 2:38 pm
The last two paragraphs were addressed to Lane, obviously…
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 2:43 pm
“Wilkins does not want LC 68 to be speaking about apostates prior to their apostasy, because of that last clause “do never truly come to Jesus Christ.” That doesn’t help his case very much, does it? ”
When Wilkins actually does address the “common operations,” he agrees with Lane:
“And so on. These chapters do not address the spiritual experience of those who are not elect (in the WCF 3 sense). Indeed, the Standards have very little to say about the spiritual experience of the non-elect who are members of the visible church. WCF 10.4 is perhaps the clearest and fullest statement. This section refers to those who are members of the church but who apostatize (those who received the “common operations of the Spirit”). The Confession makes clear that these who fall away “never truly come to Christ.””
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 3:43 pm
For Xon, the A, not-A has been attempted at least here:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/01/07/rejoinder-to-jonathan-barlow/#comment-3493
Todd, I just can’t read it that way. I don’t see his statements as having the qualifications that you see are there.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 3:54 pm
“Todd, I just can’t read it that way. I don’t see his statements as having the qualifications that you see are there.”
In your view, about whom does Wilkins believe LC 68 is talking?
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Lane, you accused me of artificially limiting Wilkins’ scope. But he has been explicit about his scope. He quoted ONLY from the first clause, made absolutely no reference to the rest of the answer, and then made the unremarkable comment that this “effectual calling” doesn’t describe the apostate.
It seems to me that you have artificially broadened his scope. Can you give any reason to believe that he’s refering to the whole answer, rather than just to the part he’s quoted from?
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I almost came to the conclusion that I had been wrong, Todd. You make a good case for your position. I might modify what I said to mean, “Wilkins is very unclear here.” What is still extremely unclear is this sentence: “Thus, in every case, the standards are not referring to apostates and what might be true of them prior to their apostasy.” Ambiguities: “in every case,” and “not referring to apostates.” Why didn’t Wilkins speak of the final two-thirds of LC 68, which directly address the question he said he’s trying to answer? LC 68 is making an absolute dichotomy between those who are effectually called, and those who are not. Those who are not (and this would *have* to include those who are NECM, to use Xon’s abbr.) do never truly come to Christ. In Federal Vision, Wilkins says expressly the opposite, all those who are baptized have true union with Christ. I cannot see any way around this contradiction.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 5:44 pm
“What is still extremely unclear is this sentence: “Thus, in every case, the standards are not referring to apostates and what might be true of them prior to their apostasy.” Ambiguities: “in every case,” and “not referring to apostates.” Why didn’t Wilkins speak of the final two-thirds of LC 68, which directly address the question he said he’s trying to answer?”
He doesn’t need to speak about the other parts of 68, because he’s simply talking about effectual calling and true believers. He has no problem with the rest of the answer, since he quotes approvingly the equivalent part of the WCF in another place, as I quoted above:
“And so on. These chapters do not address the spiritual experience of those who are not elect (in the WCF 3 sense). Indeed, the Standards have very little to say about the spiritual experience of the non-elect who are members of the visible church. WCF 10.4 is perhaps the clearest and fullest statement. This section refers to those who are members of the church but who apostatize (those who received the “common operations of the Spirit”). The Confession makes clear that these who fall away “never truly come to Christ.””
There’s no ambiguity about “in every case”; it clearly refers to the parts of WCF 17.1 and LC 79 and 68 that he has just referred to, and to those parts only. There’s no real reason to understanding him to be referring to the rest of 68. Right?
Whether there is real contradiction between “never truly come to Christ” and the union with Christ that Wilkins affirms is another question.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 5:52 pm
You haven’t added anything to your case here. Therefore, I am still where I was in comment 22.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 5:54 pm
OK. What else could “in every case” refer to?
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Oh, I think I just put my finger on what’s really bothering me about this statement of Wilkins. I see LC 68 as a unity, dealing with the question of “elect/non-elect” altogether. So for me, when he quotes only the first part of the LC, he is taking it out of context, such that he can then say “the standards are not referring to apostates.” Yes, just that little snippet doesn’t refer to the apostates. But the entire rest of the LC 68 does. To me, he puts a bifurcation in that question where none belongs. That’s the real issue. That didn’t come out very clearly in my post. But I think that is the issue.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 6:06 pm
But why would he need to talk about the whole thing, when his purpose is to express his agreement with the WS’s ascription of effectual calling to the elect alone?
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Because his stated concern in that section was to talk about “those who are members of the church but not elect.” That is in the very same paragraph. My conern, to flesh it out even more, is this: Wilkins ascribes to baptism union with Christ that is a true union, a union which this question of the LC denies can happen with anyone but the elect. That is the issue, as I see it.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 6:29 pm
But he affirms this language explicitly in another place–an earlier place–although he references the equivalent place in the WCF instead of LC 68. He’s not suppressing any incriminating stuff, he’s just not bringing it up again at this point.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 6:31 pm
I already answered this in comment 8.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 8:51 pm
But your argument now is that he should have talked about all of LC 68 when he brings it up in the section you’ve quoted. My response is that he is under no such obligation, since he has already affirmed those ideas — never truly come to Christ.
Part of your original claim was this: “Being faced with the explicit language of LC 68, which most certainly does refer to non-elect covenant members, Wilkins says that it does not refer to them!”
But he has not made any claim about 68 as a whole at all, in the section we’re talking about.
Anne said,
January 10, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Okay, here’s a dumb question….no kidding. I’m asking.
If that’s all TE Wilkins meant, i.e. to say “Yup! What they said” to the first part of LC 68, what’d he even bring it up for?
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Wilkins was asked how some of his earlier answers squared with three specific sections of the standards. “If you answered yes to any of these questions, how do you reconcile your teaching with:”, etc.
Anne said,
January 10, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Ah. Okay. Thanks. ;^)
David Gadbois said,
January 11, 2007 at 3:56 am
“But your argument now is that he should have talked about all of LC 68 when he brings it up in the section you’ve quoted. My response is that he is under no such obligation, since he has already affirmed those ideas — never truly come to Christ.”
But when your presbytery asks you how your system squares up with a section of WLC, then he certainly is under obligation to address the whole of the section.
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 7:18 am
Not if he’s covered the content of that section earlier.
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 11:30 am
“On page 16, we see one of the worst examples of shoddy scholarship in the entire exam.”
Lane, I’m wondering here whether, in light of our discussion yesterday, you might be willing to rescind some of your language about Wilkins in this post.
Also, if something is the shoddiest, is it the worst example of shoddiness, or the best example oF shoddiness?
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Lane?