Wilkins’s exam, part 11
January 11, 2007 at 1:23 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy)
I don’t have any huge quibbles with his answer on assurance, except that I think he needlessly over-emphasizes the external aspects of assurance at the expense of the internal. But this is not an issue of orthodoxy. One sentence I do find problematic, however, is this: “We do not attain assurance by trying to discern the sincerity of our faith or repentance through introspection of our hearts and examination of our motives, affections, or feelings.” My problem with this is that the WCF says that the Holy Spirit attests to our spirit that our faith is genuine. Therefore, some kind of introspection to see if the Holy Spirit is working would seem to be required for such assurance. There seems to be an unwillingness on Wilkins’s part to engage the Puritans on this score, who were famous for their dissection of the human soul (much maligned and hated by many today). We should not disenfranchise the Puritans, since it was they, after all, who fashioned the WS in the first place. But even this is still a minor point.
On to baptism. His answer to the first question is by no means the same thing as what he said in Federal Vision. In Federal Vision, he plainly says that baptism unites us to Christ. Period. No qualifications on that. He does not repudiate what he said in Federal Vision, even as as his exam gives a much more balanced picture (though still defective). Wilkins says “that baptism delivers over to us all the promises of God in Christ Jesus (for this reason the LC #167 imposes upon us the necessity of ‘improving our baptism’ by ‘growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament’).” Emphasis his. This is extremely vague. “Delivers over to us all the promises?” Does baptism give the goods to us or not? See, “promises” can mean either the bare word of promise, or it can mean the thing promised. So, this is still vague and obfuscating, in my opinion. He does say that “What is offered in baptism may not be received because of unbelief.” This is certainly better than the phrase “delivers over to us all the promises.” However, it still begs the question of whether or not baptism works ex opere operato (by itself) or not, because he goes on to say again, that “these promises are given over to him and are his, but they must be embraced by faith for him to enjoy their benefits in salvation.” He continues his ambiguity in the last sentence of the paragraph: “All the benefits of Christ and the new covenant are presented, delivered over to the baptized individual, but they cannot secure salvation apart from faith.” This is downright contradictory: all the benefits of the new covenant are delivered by baptism, but eternal salvation cannot be secured except by faith. This is not saying the same thing at all as the Hodge quotation. Hodge is saying that the benefits of the covenant of grace do not come to the person at all unless ratified by faith. The ratification by faith is an absolutely necessary condition to having the benefits of the covenant of grace. Wilkins subtlely changes this to read “delivered over…but salvation not secured apart from faith.” These are two different statements altogether. He inserts the possibility of ex opere operato in between Hodge’s main clause and the necessary qualification.
I think that Wilkins’s third paragraph on the second question connects the sign too closely with the thing signified. He doesn’t deal with the issue of sacramental language. So, even though the fifth paragraph exists, it is not enough to counterbalance the problems of the third paragraph. I’m not going to deal with the quotes, since those are not Wilkins’s own words, to which I confine myself. I will deal with the last part in the last post in the series. Boy, I’m getting tired!
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 10:12 pm
“I’m not going to deal with the quotes, since those are not Wilkins’s own words, to which I confine myself.”
But aren’t these quotation part of Wilkins’s claim to continuity with the Reformed tradition?
Todd said,
January 12, 2007 at 10:21 am
“In Federal Vision, he plainly says that baptism unites us to Christ. Period. No qualifications on that.”
But there’s Reformed precedent for this kind of blanket statement, right?
greenbaggins said,
January 13, 2007 at 11:20 am
Yes, that is his claim. But my claim is that he is not conformed to the WS. To such a question and concern, the other Reformed theologians are really not all that important, since they are not the standard.
There’s no WS standard precedent for this if one understands sacramental language properly (something I have yet to see in any FV proponent).
Todd said,
January 13, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Would you vote against John Knox in a presbytery exam?
Todd said,
January 13, 2007 at 12:48 pm
My questions isn’t at all meant to be a “challenge.” An honest question about the relationship between the WS and the slightly older versions of the Reformed faith.
greenbaggins said,
January 13, 2007 at 1:08 pm
On John Knox, I haven’t read enough of him to know whether he would be okay with the WS. Your question in number 5 is, of course, a legitimate question. However, it is tangential to my concern, which is about the WS.
Todd said,
January 14, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Wilkins: “baptism delivers over to us all the promises of God in Christ Jesus”
Lane, you don’t buy it, and that’s fine. I don’t know whether it’s the best way to say things, either.
But what would you do to change this statement into something you could agree with? Could you change the verb, and say that baptism *offers* us all the promises of God in Christ Jesus? Or is a bigger change needed in your opinion? Just what does baptism *do* with all the promises?