Green Baggins

69 Comments

1. 

   Anne Ivy said,

   January 15, 2007 at 1:56 pm

   [respectfully] Wow. Beautifully, carefully, and lucidly explained, Lane.

   Wow.

2. 

   markhorne said,

   January 15, 2007 at 5:21 pm

   Lane, I have NOT been following all this, so take what follows with a grain of salt.

   1. Your syllogism is formally flawless. And elegant. But I think some readers (maybe me) will be afraid of an unstated consequence: “6. Therefore, all Scriptures that might look like they contradict this conclusion must not actually do so.” That can be a guide to what a text *probably* means, but it seems like the wrong way to go about proving what the Bible actually says. Many (on both sides) are going to want us to argue about what Scripture actually says, not about what it must say.

   (I’m not saying you haven’t show your concern about the latter, only that your syllogism sounds like a license to not deal with the text–however much your own treatment of the text is superior.)

   2. “any kind of pardon” sounds like a doorway for equivocation. Have you really proven that *no kind* of pardon can be attributed to a person without the pardon of original sin? I just don’t see how your argument supports such a universal demand on how we may speak. As for the WCF, one could simply argue that he agrees with the WCF regarding saving pardon (pardon1). But that the parable of the unforgiving servant gives us (pardon2). And the general exhortations to all professing Christians to forgive as we have been forgiven (pardon3, which may or may not be the same as pardon2).

   Just some thoughts.

3. 

   greenbaggins said,

   January 15, 2007 at 5:36 pm

   Regarding 1, I would say that I have hardly been reticent about dealing with the relevant Scripture texts. I have posted many times about the debated texts, engaging in fairly detailed exegesis. I am not afraid of the exegesis. I have posted on John 15, 1 John 2:19, Jude 5, Matthew 13, and Hebrews 10:39. I have yet to deal with Hebrews 6, but I will at some point. Furthermore, I would say that our ST must guide our exegesis. The WS must be our lense through which we view the Scriptures. Of course, the relationship must be two-way. We must also see the WS in the light of Scripture. This is non-negotiable for me. Both strands are essential.

   2. Let me rephrase the argument: all actual sin has its origin in original sin. Therefore, the actual sin cannot be forgiven without the original sin also being forgiven. Otherwise, the branch (actual sin) has been forgiven without the root (original sin) being dealt with at all. This is impossible. We have been over the parable of the unforgiving servant. I deny utterly that it offers an instance of actual pardon to an apostate. The whole point of the ending is that he was not in fact forgiven.

4. 

   Todd said,

   January 15, 2007 at 5:40 pm

   “The whole point of the ending is that he was not in fact forgiven.”

   Not forgiven by whom?

5. 

   greenbaggins said,

   January 15, 2007 at 5:40 pm

   By the master.

6. 

   Todd said,

   January 15, 2007 at 5:48 pm

   Not even forgiven for a teensy, little while?

7. 

   greenbaggins said,

   January 15, 2007 at 6:08 pm

   Look, if you are going to say that he was really forgiven, then you have to take that to its logical conclusion: the person who does not forgive his brother *at the first opportunity* will have his forgiveness taken away from him. Is this where you really want to go with this? I have indicated in previous comments about this parable that there are indications of hyperbole (especially in the amount owed) that point to a hypothetical situation. You are pressing the story into much too literal a framework here. Furthermore, you are not allowing other Scripture to interpret this Scripture. One does not lose one’s salvation, or forgiveness. One cannot lose one’s justification. Are passages that teach these latter truths to have absolutely zero voice in interpreting this parable? That seems to be what you’re suggesting.

8. 

   Todd said,

   January 15, 2007 at 6:27 pm

   I’m just uncomfortable summarizing the “whole point” of the parable in a way the directly contradicts one of the lines of the parable.

   “The whole point of the ending is that he was not in fact forgiven.”

   Right. At the end of the story, he is unforgiven. “And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt.”

   But earlier: “And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.”

   Of course we have to be extremely careful in how we apply this to questions of justification. Of course it’s wrong to “press the details” of the story.

   But it’s just as wrong to tamper with the details of the story and pretend it doesn’t say something that it actually says.

9. 

   greenbaggins said,

   January 15, 2007 at 6:48 pm

   Todd, you are absolutizing the first part of the parable. Is it not quite possible that the first part of the parable illustrates what the servant thinks is the real state of affairs, without actually being the real state of affairs? By your argument, one should go the passages that say “God repented,” and come away with an understanding of a changing God, because only that does justice to the details of the text.

10. 

    Todd said,

    January 15, 2007 at 7:09 pm

    “Is it not quite possible that the first part of the parable illustrates what the servant thinks is the real state of affairs, without actually being the real state of affairs?”

    Not quite possible, since it’s the narrator talking about the real state of affairs: “And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.”

    The forgiveness is not a matter of the servant’s point of view at all. The narrator states it as straight-forward fact.

11. 

    Todd said,

    January 15, 2007 at 7:43 pm

    I think it’s one thing to say that the fact that the servant was forgiven for a while is a detail that we shouldn’t apply to questions of justification. That’s worth debating.

    But it’s another thing to say that the real point of the story is that the servant was never really forgiven at all, even though the narrator says that the master forgave him his debt.

12. 

    Susan said,

    January 15, 2007 at 9:47 pm

    Hey, Lane, cool blog! Now if I can ever get back into the blogosphere–college has made me a little rusty!–I’ll keep an eye on this page. Hello to Sarah!

13. 

    markhorne said,

    January 16, 2007 at 1:42 am

    OK, I’m not going to dictate how this gets systemetized (and I do think it is not only legitimate but needful to do such a thing) but I am going to go out on a limb and say that the whole point of the parable was that the unforgiving servant had his forgiveness revoked. And the point is that professing Christians who are regarded as forgiven can lose that status.

    Now, I’m all in favor of making a distinction between the *ultimate* (or choose some other word) forgiveness experienced by those who are effectually called and whatever is experienced by those generally called. But if it were so important that we all know that no one who is not elect ever experiences anything that can, in any way, be described as forgiveness, then the parable is misleading. Since that is not the case (as everyone agrees) I think we need to insist on the distinction without prohibiting the use of the word, forgiveness, on both sides of that distinction.

    Lane, I feel the force of your arguments about original sin. But they could just as easily be used to prove that Jesus was wrong to tell the parable in the way he did. So I can’t really be persuaded by them.

14. 

    markhorne said,

    January 16, 2007 at 1:43 am

    “The WS must be our lense through which we view the Scriptures.”

    Well, the Westminster divines did OK without that lens.

15. 

    G.L.W.Johnson said,

    January 16, 2007 at 8:30 am

    Lane
    I fail to see how the FV, as advocated by Wilkens and Lusk( yes, I recognise that the FV is not monolithic) can harmonized the notion that the NECM actually do share in the redemptive benefits of Christ by virtue of their ‘ temporary’ union with Christ ( which they argue does include the forgiveness of sins) can remotely be squared with the Westminster Standards. If according to the Westminster divines’ language they( the NECM) never truly come to faith in Christ, how can their sins be forgiven for any period of time?

16. 

    Xon said,

    January 16, 2007 at 11:41 am

    Hey, Lane. More good stuff here!

    Re: LC 68, you mention that the Catechsim is speaking of NECMs and that it says they “are left in their unbelief” and that they “never truly come to Christ.” You then prognosticate:

    Now, I can hear (or see) what Xon will do with this: plug in the “usage definitions” of “unbelief,” “truly come to Jesus Christ,” etc., and thereby limit the language of the WS to the description of the decretal understanding of NECM’s. Thereby he will probably say that such language does not say anything about non-decretal benefits that such NECM’s might receive. I am not saying this to slight Xon. I merely note that this has been his pattern of argumentation. I will respond in advance by saying that the WS are here treating of NECM’s. Period. Full stop. The subject of LC 68 is the NECM’s. They never truly believe, and they never truly come to Christ. That is (I think the WS would say), they never trust in Christ for salvation, and they are never truly united to Christ. Period. My point here is that the WS exclude any kind of temporary true faith, or temporary true union. I think the WS would view those categories as contradictions in terms.(emphasis added)

    You got my response largely correct, but I would make some important (I think) modifications. First, you are right that the “subject” of LC 68 is non-elect covenant members, but the context is that that the LC is talking about things that only the elect get, as I’m sure you would agree. The question being answered in LC 68 is “Are only the elect effectually called?” And we already know that “effectually called” is a pretty technical theological term in the WS. But the answer to the question, in any case, is “Yes.” (short version) Only the elect are effectually called. But the Catechism tells us “Yes” by referencing NECMs and telling us that things like that they never “truly” come to Christ. The question is, what does “truly” mean? In the bold portion of what I cited above, you are essentially arguing for what “usage definitions” should be plugged in. You tried to anticipate what I would plug in, and are instead offering something better (so say you!) to plug in. If you were into putting your arguments in the propositional form that I have been (sometimes) using, then I think this would be the upshot of that bolded portion. (Sound right, or close enough?)

    So our disagreement is not over whether NECMs are the subject of LC 68, “full stop” or any other kind of stop. Our disagreement is over what terms like “truly” mean in LC 68. We both have to argue for some “usage definitions” here. Unlike some of the previous stages of this discussion, where I think you largely agreed with my “usage definitions”, here we are having a dispute over what the “usage definitions” actually should be. In other words, this is just a long-winded way of saying that we are disagreeing on how to interpret LC 68 itself. You want words like “unbelief” and “truly” to mean that LC 68 is denying any sort of “coming unto Christ” whatsoever to non-elect people. I understand that reading, I really do, but I think it goes too far and would actually create problems for many critics of FV.

    This requires a detour to clear something up. The basic idea of LC 98, it seems to me, is to set NECMs up as a third group in the world, different from elect covenant members, certainly, but also different from rank pagans. There are many non-elect people who are never members of the Church at all (such as lifelong Buddhists, for instance). And there are elect people who undergo some sort of transformation during their earthly life which makes them God’s in a permanent, “deep” way. But NECMs are a third or even “middle” group. They are in some real sense a part of the community of God’s special chosen people, but in another real sense they are not a part of that community in the way that they really should be or could be. This seems to me to be the basic “map” of the terrain that the Confession is trying to lay out. I think we would all agree to this? Our disagreement is over exactly what sorts of benefits and responsibilities go to this third group in the “middle” b/w the elect and rank unbelievers. (For instance, can we say that they are in any sense “forgiven?” Afterall, these NECMs receive “common operations of the Spirit,” which is something that rank unbelievers presumably do not receive.

    It seems to me that if anyone in this debate “flattened out” the kinds of people in the world into only two—elect and non-elect—then he would be against the Confession. And I don’t think that any of us are actually doing that. Many critics of FV, for instance, acknowledge that NECMs have some sort of “external” union with Christ. But when we talk this way we are still positing a “union” in some real sense. I mean, we just now did so posit when we said “external union”. “External” is the adjective, and “union” is the noun it modifies. Now, we can also say that an “external” union is not a “real” union, or not a “true” union, in line with what I said above. (i.e., it is not the deepest, most important, sort of union) But if LC 98 forces us to say that NECMs have literally no union with Christ to speak of, at all, then even Scott Clark’s “external union” talk (for example, and such talk is also common on the Warfield list from what I’ve seen) would be out of bounds with your interpretation of it. (Of course, Clark isn’t bound to the WS, but you get my point…).

    Now, I’m not saying “We all agree-la la la la.” Far from it. FVers are definitely going farther (or “deeper”) in the kind of connection to Christ that they are wanting to attribute to these NECMs. And, of course, a number of them (myself included) prefer to use different language than “external” (I would suggest something like “deeper”, for instance). But the basic upshot, details bracketed for later, is two propositions I think we can all affirm:

    NECM1: NECMs are connected to Christ in a way that rank unbelievers are not.

    NECM2: The connection that NECMS have to Christ is not as “true” as the connection which elect covenant members enjoy.

    Now, again, clearly we have ourselves a disagreement about the nature of this connection which NECMs possess. For instance, I think we can speak of this connection as involving some kind of forgiveness for sins, but you don’t want to say that. (This is the fuller context of our present discussion: your “Prong 1″ is that the Confession teaches there is only one kind of forgiveness of sins, which has led us into this discussion of LC 68.) But my understanding was that all of us would agree with the basic principles contained in both NECM1 and NECM2. Am I wrong in my understanding here? Lane, do you disagree with NECM1? If you do disagree with it, then this “re-contextualizes” my understanding of our debate, and it would be nice if I got clear on this as soon as possible. I’ve been assuming all along that you would affirm NECM1, and would see the Confession as affirming NECM1.

    ————————-

    Assuming that you agree with NECM1, that we all agree with NECM1, then your interpretation of WLC 68 is problematic because it would falsify NECM1. (If you actually disagree with it, then tell me so and I’ll try to respond to that.)

    If we don’t want to read the Confession as falsifying NECM1, then how else can we read it? In other words, let’s get back to the question “What does “truly” mean?” I think there is a fairly easy reading available to us. People today say things like, “If you were a true [they might also say 'real'] American, you would support the war.” I’m not testifying to the accuracy of that statement, but the point is we hear and say things like this all the time. Clearly what this statement means is that people who don’t support the war are not Americans in the “deepest” sense, that there is something incredibly important to being an American which these people are missing. But, at the same time, we don’t literally mean that the person is not an American at all. Clearly they are an American in some real sense—they are an American citizen, they have lived in America for a long time, they know and agree with the basic structure of the government, etc.

    We’d have to do some more detailed work in historical linguistics to really prove this either way, but my suspicion is that this usage of “truly” was even more common in post-Elizabethan England than it is today in 21st century America. At the very least, I’ll bet that mid 17-th century English admitted of this usage. (Think medieval warriors having a contest with a bow-and-arrow, and talking about whose shot was more “true.” Or asking the executioner to “be true” with his axe. Of course, if he’s not true, your head still comes off—eventually. Being “true” admits of degrees…) So, when the Confession says that non-elect people never “truly” come unto Christ, I think it is saying something like they don’t come to Christ in the deepest way, in the most important way, etc. I don’t think it is saying that they literally do not come to Him in any way whatsoever.

    I want to say that the statement by LC 68 that these NECMs are “justly left in their unbelief” should also be understood in a similar way. I mean, we’ve all seen that chart by Perkins, right, in which he talks about a “temporary faith” that NECMs have? Granted, Perkins predates the Westminster Assembly, so I suppose it is possible to say that the Assembly was making a break from that was of thinking, but I don’t think this is likely. Again, I think a number of divines would have spoken the same way. I admit to not being well-studied in puritan primary texts at this point in my life (though I’m not a complete neophyte, either), so I invite anyone to come in and give a more historically-sensitive account. (Of course, Joel Garver has done a lot in this regard already from an FV perspective.) But it is hard for me to imagine that, in about 40 years, the “Puritan movement” would have evolved in such a way (across all three of its major ecclesiastical manifestations) into something that simply refused to speak as Perkins would have spoken in 1600. This sort of historical consideration, I think, has to contextualize our understanding of the statement in LC 68 that NECMs are “justly left in their unbelief.” It means that they are left without having the “real” or “true” belief, that “deeper” or more important kind of belief which is actually effectual unto eternal life. But I don’t think it means to say that these NECMs never believe at all, in any sense. (And this doesn’t even get into biblical arguments from James, etc.) I imagine it means “belief” as a synonym for “faith”, and of course “faith” is a pretty technical theological term for the Confession which refers to that trusting upon the work of Christ in all of one’s life, which only the elect ever “truly” do. Obviously we all agree that NECMs never have this kind of faith, and thus never truly “believe” in this sort of way. I think we could turn all this into something like:

    NECM3: One way in which the connection with Christ enjoyed by elect covenant members is more “true” than that possessed by NECMs is that the elect covenant members have saving faith as a result of their union.

    So, I think that when the “usage definitions” are plugged in for things like “unbelief” and “truly come unto Christ”, then LC 68 is teaching something like NECM1 and NECM2 and is also probably adding NECM3 as a particular way in which NECM union with Christ differs from ECM union with Christ. But I it’s abundantly clear, I think, that Wilkins actively affirms NECM1 and NECM2, and I’m pretty darn sure that he at the very least never says anything which is contrary to NECM3.

    I’d like to respond to what you said about “judicial wrath” vs. “Fatherly displeasure” as well, but I’d rather wait until you tell me whether you affirm NECM1 or not.

17. 

    pduggie said,

    January 16, 2007 at 3:46 pm

    “Look, if you are going to say that he was really forgiven, then you have to take that to its logical conclusion: the person who does not forgive his brother *at the first opportunity* will have his forgiveness taken away from him”

    No you don’t. Jesus uses hype all the time.

    Or have you cut off your hand lately?

18. 

    greenbaggins said,

    January 16, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    Okay, Mark first. BOQ the whole point of the parable was that the unforgiving servant had his forgiveness revoked. And the point is that professing Christians who are regarded as forgiven can lose that status. EOQ

    Okay, here is the problem with what you said here: the first sentence implies that the forgiveness was real; the second sentence sees the forgiveness as only a “regarded” forgiveness. Which is it? Regarded by whom as forgiven? You have to admit, Mark, that this is highly ambiguous. What you are feeling, no doubt, is the tension that such an exegesis creates with Confessional statements. Are we Reformed or aren’t we? Do people keep their forgiveness or lose it? If we are Reformed, and believe that a person is always forgiven if truly forgiven, then either we have a problem with the parable (interpreting it absolutely all by its lonesome, with no other Scripture to help it, as you have done), or we ask how our understanding of the rest of Scripture’s teaching influences how we interpret this parable. I go with the latter option. You, Mark, seem quite happy with interpreting the parable absolutely, come what may, and too bad about the Confessional implications. I cannot ever go there. The divines would never go there either. By the way, before the divines created their document, they were not bound by oath to it. Obviously, there were significant problems in the church, or they would not have drawn up such a document. Furthermore, we are bound by oath to it.

    To Mr. Johnson, you are saying exactly what I am trying to say, I think. I don’t think the WS have any kind of category that fits “temporarily forgiven people.”

    To Todd, what you’re saying then is that forgiveness is not part of justification? Forgiveness is an integral part of justification! Which provides, interestingly enough, yet another argument for the idea that only the elect are forgiven. Only the elect are justified. I think that the parable cannot be divorced from justification. In which case, if the servant was forgiven, he was justified, and therefore can lose his justification. Thoroughly Arminian, folks. Period.

    Xon, BOQ It seems to me that if anyone in this debate “flattened out” the kinds of people in the world into only two—elect and non-elect—then he would be against the Confession. EOQ This is not true, I deem. Chapter 33 does not tell us that there are such things as shoats, or geep for that matter. There are only sheep and goats. Now, of course, that begs the question of what is happening *now.*

    Regarding NECM 1, I would cautiously agree, as long as it is firmly stated also that NECM’s have *none* of the saving benefits that ECM’s do. In other words, there are *zero* ordo salutis benefits that accrue to NECM’s. Zero, none, nil, zilch, null, and any other way of saying “nada.” The way you have put it does not guard this carefully enough, I think. Yes, there are things that NECM’s have that the world does not have: the preaching of the Word, the fellowship of believers, and access to the means of grace (although, since they never partake of them correctly, those are really judgment on them). But they have *none* of the saving benefits. From this perspective, the WCF certainly *does* view the whole world as sheep or goats, divided into two groups.

    It strikes me very forcefully here that we are dealing with a distinction about what is real as opposed to what is perceived. It seems that this might have the potential, actually, to clear up a lot of the problem here. When we simply look at the church, we cannot tell who is a sheep and who is a goat. That is certainly one reason why Paul addresses the church the way he does. We cannot read the heart. However, Scripture also speaks in terms of what is really the case. In that mode of expression, the differences between NECM’s and ECM’s are not only clear, but sharp. This is really another way of saying that, covenantally speaking, it is not easy to tell the difference between the two, but decretally speaking (and therefore hypothetically speaking, or abstractly speaking) there is an easy way to tell the difference.

    Another distinction that is helpful here is the difference between what we cannot see in someone else, versus what we can see in ourselves. We cannot see whether someone else is elect, for instance. But I can know whether *I* am elect. Just because we cannot read anyone else’s heart does not mean that we cannot read our own (this would have to be by the Holy Spirit enlightening us, since the heart is deceitful above all things).

19. 

    greenbaggins said,

    January 16, 2007 at 4:18 pm

    Paul, if Jesus uses hype all the time, then why is it impossible to interpret the “forgiveness” at the beginning as hype? You just shot yourself in the foot there, Paul.

20. 

    Todd said,

    January 16, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    “In which case, if the servant was forgiven, he was justified, and therefore can lose his justification.”

    You’re mixing your categories again here, Lane, like when you told us how certain you were that the servant had not really been forgiven *by God.*

    Are you really saying that if the servant was forgiven by his human master, then he was therefore also justified by God? That’s just silly.

21. 

    greenbaggins said,

    January 16, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    Why are you interpreting the master of the parable to be anyone other than God? Surely, on the fictional level, the master is not God. But on the metaphorical level, the master is God. Jesus Himself says that the point of the analogy is that the master at least behaves in the same way as God does. For all practical intents and purposes, we are to view ourselves in the position of a servant, and the master is God. Silly, indeed. I defy you to come up with one single solitary Reformation interpretation of this text that does not make that connection.

22. 

    Todd said,

    January 16, 2007 at 4:43 pm

    Of course I affirm the connection.

    But to mix the story and the theological application so sloppily — ““In which case, if the servant was forgiven, he was justified, and therefore can lose his justification.” — is silly.

23. 

    Xon said,

    January 16, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    Regarding NECM 1, I would cautiously agree, as long as it is firmly stated also that NECM’s have *none* of the saving benefits that ECM’s do. In other words, there are *zero* ordo salutis benefits that accrue to NECM’s.

    Sure, Lane, this is where we clearly disagree. Hence our disagreement about whether we can say that NECMs are “forgiven.” But my point was just that we do agree, in principle, with the category of people described by NECM1. We disagree as to what exactly to say about those people. I think we can describe their situation using some terms that are also used in the “ordo salutis”. You think we shouldn’t describe them that way at all. This is, precisely, the locus of our disagreement. But I needed to be sure, before we continued disagreeing over this, that we really did agree on the more rudimetnary category posited by NECM1. Now that I know that we do agree on that, we can continue discussing forgiveness and such. Is that clear?

24. 

    Xon said,

    January 16, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    It strikes me very forcefully here that we are dealing with a distinction about what is real as opposed to what is perceived. It seems that this might have the potential, actually, to clear up a lot of the problem here. When we simply look at the church, we cannot tell who is a sheep and who is a goat. That is certainly one reason why Paul addresses the church the way he does. We cannot read the heart. However, Scripture also speaks in terms of what is really the case. In that mode of expression, the differences between NECM’s and ECM’s are not only clear, but sharp. This is really another way of saying that, covenantally speaking, it is not easy to tell the difference between the two, but decretally speaking (and therefore hypothetically speaking, or abstractly speaking) there is an easy way to tell the difference.

    Two things in response to this, Lane, and it is interesting to me how divergent the two points are. Maybe you’ll agree?

    First, I think using the language of “perceived” vs. “real” doesn’t go nearly far enough in attributing benefits to NECMs, both in terms of how Reformed people have historically described them (which is not to say that these Reformed folks were “FV”, by any means) or in terms of how the Confession speaks. As I said earlier, I think a lot of the critics of FV would have trouble calling the NECM union with Christ only a “perceived” union. (Even an “external” union, which seems to be some of the favorite language out there for critics, is more than just a perceived union.) I guess this still makes it a little unclear whether you agree with NECM1 or not. I think it’s clear enough to move forward, though.

    The second comment is that your distinction between what we know covenantally speaking about people in the Church and what we know about them decretally really opens the door, I think, for a large amount of the “practical/pastoral” side of FV theology. Since I don’t know anyone’s decretal status but my own, as you say, but covenantally I know a lot about them–they are in the covenant, called to faith, etc.–then I treat them from the covenantal perspective. Which means reading Ephesians like it was written to them, etc.

    Gotta go, that’s crude. I’ll make it better later…

25. 

    pduggie said,

    January 16, 2007 at 5:10 pm

    Yeah, but you didn’t offer that option. I’ve often maintained that I could take down the FV better than most critics can

26. 

    greenbaggins said,

    January 17, 2007 at 8:34 am

    Then do it, Paul. Stop trying to shoot down all the arguments of people who have genuine, deep problems with the FV, and are not trying to slander, but to clarify the Gospel.

27. 

    greenbaggins said,

    January 17, 2007 at 8:39 am

    To Xon, here is my question. We want some kind of language to describe what NECM’s have that pagans don’t have, but which also does not encroach on the territory of the elect. My suggestion is to avoid the language of the ordo salutis entirely in describing this stuff. The WS have language to describe it that is clearly distinct from the ordo salutis, but which is also clearly distinct from what pagans have. I will die on this hill: *no* ordo salutis benefits come to NECM’s. Anyone who says differently is clearly out of accord with the WS, especially chapter 3.6. I am absolutely emphatically insistent on this point. Not only will no one budge me on this issue, but opposition to this point will only make me more insistent on it. It is the Scottish in me, I’m sure.

28. 

    Xon said,

    January 17, 2007 at 10:23 am

    Lane, just so we’re clear. Are you saying that you want to be done with discussing this? Or are you just trying to drive the point home how firmly you believe in your position?

29. 

    Xon said,

    January 17, 2007 at 10:38 am

    Assuming you aren’t saying that you have tired of this debate altogether, a question about this:

    The WS have language to describe it that is clearly distinct from the ordo salutis, but which is also clearly distinct from what pagans have. I will die on this hill: *no* ordo salutis benefits come to NECM’s.

    There are two things I think you might mean by this.

    1. No ordo salutis benefits, as defined by WS, come to NECMs.

    2. It is inappropriate to describe NECMs using language that WS use to describe ordo salutis benefits.

    If your position is (1), then I think everyone here agrees. (Though we are in the middle of a discussion concerning forgiveness, and you have made an argument which is at least plausible that FVers actually do attribute forgiveness, as defined by WS, to NECMs. But the point would still be almost entirely granted by both sides: all the ordo salutis stuff that WS talks about, when defined as WS defines it, is stuff that only happens to the elect. Forgiveness would be, I think, an exception that proves the rule.)

    If your position is (2), which seems most likely since you are talking about the “language” we should use “to describe what NECMs have that pagans don’t have”, then this seems to be obviously incorrect. If (2) is correct, then we are right back to the idea that it is inappropriate to use words in ways different than how the Standards use it. (And insisting on this point is what will, ultimately, make one commit the word-concept fallacy.) I understand your point, if it is this: it is highly risky to carelessly use the same language of the Standards in different ways, without being really darn clear what you mean. But to say that we should simply avoid using this language altogether unless we mean it in exactly the way the Confession means it, even if it appears to us that Scripture does not follow this rule, seems highly problematic. And this argument doesn’t rest on Wilkins’ controversial interpretation of passages like Ephesians 1, but on more obvious passages that I didn’t think were in dispute by anyone–such as when Paul calls children “sanctified” simply because they have one believing parent. This cannot be the WS meaning of “sanctified”. What exactly does it mean there? I dunno for sure, but clearly the word isn’t being used the way the Confession uses it. So, when a pastor stands up to preach this particular text, can he use the word “sanctified” to talk about a mass of people, many of whom are not elect, or can’t he?

    My guess is that you mean something different than either (1) or (2), and that I am just missing it. Sorry I’m making you watch me critique thin air if that’s the case.

30. 

    markhorne said,

    January 17, 2007 at 11:07 am

    Lane, I appreciate your interaction but I am now interspersing my comments with yours, which means I have gotten too involved and need to stop spending so much time on this. So please feel free to have the last word

    ———————————-

    Okay, Mark first. BOQ the whole point of the parable was that the unforgiving servant had his forgiveness revoked. And the point is that professing Christians who are regarded as forgiven can lose that status. EOQ

    Okay, here is the problem with what you said here: the first sentence implies that the forgiveness was real; the second sentence sees the forgiveness as only a “regarded” forgiveness. Which is it? Regarded by whom as forgiven? You have to admit, Mark, that this is highly ambiguous.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    Right. The usefulness of ambiguity is probably one of the points of contention here. I think in ordinary language, referring to a congregations as “elect” is ambiguous and should be. Vague language is, in some situations, the best language to use. See Frame on the quest for theological precision in Doctrine of the Knowledge of God for some more on this.

    ———————————–

    What you are feeling, no doubt, is the tension that such an exegesis creates with Confessional statements.

    +++++++++++++++++++++

    I don’t think so. The tension is the result of trying to synthesize the whole Bible. The Reformed Confesions lay out some of the issues, but Scripture is the cause here.

    +++++++++++++++++++

    Are we Reformed or aren’t we? Do people keep their forgiveness or lose it? If we are Reformed, and believe that a person is always forgiven if truly forgiven, then either we have a problem with the parable (interpreting it absolutely all by its lonesome, with no other Scripture to help it, as you have done),

    ———————————————-

    Have I? Then why the ambiguity?

    +++++++++++++++++++++

    or we ask how our understanding of the rest of Scripture’s teaching influences how we interpret this parable.

    ———————————–

    Well, as you can see, I prefer this way of putting it. But claiming that the king did not really initially forgive the unforgiving servant is not allowing “our understanding of Scripture’s teaching to influence how we interpret this parable.” Rather, it sounds like allowing our understanding of Scripture’s teaching to deny what the parable says.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I go with the latter option. You, Mark, seem quite happy with interpreting the parable absolutely, come what may, and too bad about the Confessional implications.

    ———————————————-

    Well, I’m not sure why you say this, especially since you noticed my ambiguity. I said of the parable’s interpretation “I’m all in favor of making a distinction between the *ultimate* (or choose some other word) forgiveness experienced by those who are effectually called and whatever is experienced by those generally called,” and that what we learn must be “systematized” a process I said was “not only legitimate but needful.”

    Thanks for your time. Over and out.

31. 

    pduggie said,

    January 17, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    Lane, recall chestertons quote that the insane man has not lost his reason, its rather the only thing he has left.

    I fear that reaction to the FV is pushing people to be supremely rational in their approach to theologizing along the lines of the decrees. So rather than take the FV down by applying only reason and starting to believe insane things that are implied by the logic of “mainstream” calvinism (I can KNOW I’m elect, Zwingli was right, John Robbins is right, “Outside the Camp” is right, William Young was right, etc) I prefer to assume that these things are supposed to retain an interderminate tension and quality to them.

    Jesus did give us a parable to explain it after all.

32. 

    greenbaggins said,

    January 18, 2007 at 10:41 am

    Xon, I am not trying to shut down the debate. I merely state what hills I am going to die on. That is one of them. If it is invalid to divide humanity ultimately into two groups, then Augustine’s _City of God_ should never have been written. He notes the two cities, the city of God, and the city of man. These two are always at war, the one with the other. The city of man even possesses some within the covenant community, like Ishmael and Esau. They were within the covenant, and yet were part of the city of man. That was their fundamental allegiance. I just wish the FV would acknowledge this. They are much more accurately described as being part of the city of man than they are as being part of the city of God.

    Regarding the arguments, I certainly hold to number 1, and also hold to number 2. Wilkins is being examined for his position vis-a-vis the WS. That means that he is being asked systematic questions. Yet he cannot keep systematic categories from being confused. Note: the way I avoid the word-concept fallacy is really quite simple: when we are dealing with systematic categories, then we need to use the language of the WS exclusively. In ST questions, we don’t mess with the vocabulary or the concepts. That is extremely unwise. Yes, exegesis does reveal that Scripture uses these words sometimes (much rarer than the FV posits) in a different way. I would argue, however, that the majority usage of biblical words and ideas is what makes the life-blood of the WS.

    As Mark Horne noted, the FV is almost enough to drive me to be a rationalist. I deny that I am doing that. I am simply holding to the language of the WS. I surely will admit that there is mystery in the Christian faith, things that I cannot understand. The Trinity, the hypostatic union, God’s love. These are beyond my understanding (and anyone else’s, too). But the ordo salutis is one thing that is so crystal clear in Scripture, that I will go into rationalism about this. What I mean, is that those things necessary for salvation are written down clearly, as the WS themselves say. If there is *anything* in the entirety of theology on which we must be clear and logical, it is the doctrines of grace in salvation. If there is anything in the WS that is clear and logical, it is salvation. On the one hand, rationalism as a defining method is certainly a danger to the Christian faith. I don’t see *any* of the critics of the FV falling into this trap, however. On the other hand, a certain mysticism that wants to cloud things over is an equal and opposite danger, into which several FV proponents have fallen, you, Mark and Paul, included. Paul, are you really saying that it is insane to say that we can know whether we are elect???? So what does “making one’s calling and election sure” mean? In WCF 18, it certainly refers to decretal election. And Paul, to put the first item in that series into the same series as the other claims is ridiculous. I claim equally vehemently that we can know whether we are elect, and also that John Robbins is a loose cannon. Contradiction? I don’t think so.

33. 

    Xon said,

    January 18, 2007 at 3:25 pm

    Xon, I am not trying to shut down the debate. I merely state what hills I am going to die on.

    Okay, that’s what I thought. Good to clear that up, just in case.

    If it is invalid to divide humanity ultimately into two groups, then Augustine’s _City of God_ should never have been written. He notes the two cities, the city of God, and the city of man. These two are always at war, the one with the other. The city of man even possesses some within the covenant community, like Ishmael and Esau. They were within the covenant, and yet were part of the city of man. That was their fundamental allegiance. I just wish the FV would acknowledge this. They are much more accurately described as being part of the city of man than they are as being part of the city of God.

    Everything you say here strikes me as being absolutely right, but it also doesn’t contradict (as I see it) what I said earlier about dividing humanity into three groups. How many categories of humanity are there, two or three? As Aristotle would say, yes and no. You are right to say that there are two fundamental groups, elect and non-elect. But my plea for a third group is not a request for a whole new category besides these two, but rather is a claim that we can break down the non-elect into two further categories.

    Every person is either:

    Elect or Non-Elect (2 groups)

    But…..

    Every non-elect person is either:

    NECM or Non-Elect Never Covenant Member (3 groups)

    So, every person is either Elect, a NECM, or a NENCM. 3 categories, but also only 2 categories, depending on how you look at it.

    As to whether NECMs are “closer” to being part of the city of man or the city of God, if you are equating “city of man” with “non-elect” and “city of God” with “elect”, then obviously and certainly NECMs are “closer” to being non-elect than elect. After all, they are non-elect! How much “closer” can you get? (I’m not so sure that it is faithful to Augustine’s meaning to equate the terms this way, though, but there’s no need to go into all that.)

    Regarding the arguments, I certainly hold to number 1, and also hold to number 2.

    Just to remind everyone, here were the two propositions that Lane is affirming:

    1. No ordo salutis benefits, as defined by WS, come to NECMs.

    2. It is inappropriate to describe NECMs using language that WS use to describe ordo salutis benefits.

    (1) is rather uncontroversial, except perhaps for a few benefits here or there. But I don’t think Wilkins or anyone else would disagree, in general, with the claim that “sanctification” and “justification” and “glorificaiton”, as the Confession defines these terms, go only to those who are predestined by God to live eternally with Him in glory.

    (2) strikes me as just plain wrong, and in my earlier comment I explained a bit of why:

    “If (2) is correct, then we are right back to the idea that it is inappropriate to use words in ways different than how the Standards use it. (And insisting on this point is what will, ultimately, make one commit the word-concept fallacy.) …to say that we should simply avoid using this language altogether unless we mean it in exactly the way the Confession means it, even if it appears to us that Scripture does not follow this rule, seems highly problematic.”

    Now, Lane, in your latest comment you give the following as your argument for affirming (2):

    Wilkins is being examined for his position vis-a-vis the WS. That means that he is being asked systematic questions. Yet he cannot keep systematic categories from being confused.

    I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that Wilkins ends up talking about WS-sanctification sometimes and Wilkins-sanctification other times? But what’s wrong with this, so long as the different meanings are understood? If Wilkins’ talk about “Wilkins-sanctification” ends up contradicting in substance something that the Confession says about sanctification (or about anything else), then I understand your criticism (and isn’t this what we have been talking about in this conversation, the question of whether Wilkins indeed does this sort of thing or not?) But tihs is something we can show using the propositional method I (we) have been using. There shouldn’t be any need to criticize him for using a particular word, but rather we should simply be able to plug in his “usage definitions” for the words he uses, and plug in the Confession’s “usage definitions” for the words it uses, and then show that Wilkins says A while the Confession says not-A (or vice versa). I don’t understand how you are making an argument for (2) here. (2) is a much more extreme position, which says that you are simply not allowed to use certain words in your theological talk unless you mean them exactly the way the Confession uses them.

    Note: the way I avoid the word-concept fallacy is really quite simple: when we are dealing with systematic categories, then we need to use the language of the WS exclusively. In ST questions, we don’t mess with the vocabulary or the concepts. That is extremely unwise.

    Okay, Lane, this puzzles me a bit because it seems to “go back” on the way we have been talking about these things (i.e., the whole reason you and I have found this way of debating these issues to be “promising”). It sounds now like you are, indeed, insisting that Wilkins use “ordo salutis” words in exactly the way that the Confession uses them, and in no other way. Before, you seemed okay with the approach I was using of plugging in “usage definitions” for both the Confession and for Wilkins, and then seeing whether there was a contradiction. This was the “promising discussion” that we were having. (And, for instance, we are still in the middle of a discussion in which this method of exploring things has actually revealed a place where Wilkins may indeed be contrary to the Confession, concerning forgiveness of sins.) But now you seem to be claiming that Wilkins is simply wrong, regardless of how he uses the term, for using the same terms as the Confession (regarding the “ordo salutis”, at least) in different ways. You don’t even care how he is using them, and you are not interested in plugging in “usage definitions;” you feel he is guilty of something simply because he uses these terms in different ways. Am I misunderstaning you?

    Assuming that this is your position, then let me lay out my criticism of it. (If it is not your position, then set me straight.)

    First of all, language evolves whether we like it or not. Unless you believe that God has promised to providentially preserve all words that occur in the Confession from ever taking on a different meaning in modern English, then there is simply no guarantee that these words are going to stay the same over 400 years. But if we recognize that words can change in their usage, at the very least taking on new usages in addition to the old ones, then we have to analyze the Confession’s language using something like my “usage definition” method. We cannot just say “The Confession says “Sanctification goes only to the elect”, period, and so every theological utterance that we 21st century Reformed people ever make has to use the word ’sanctification’ in a way that is talking about an elect-only benefit.” I say we “cannot” say this, what I mean is that it strikes me as incredibly unresonable to say this, to make this demand on 21st century speakers.

    Why is it unreasonable to expect people to use language in only one way when language naturally changes over time? Well, for on thing, if you believe (2) to be true, then you are endorsing the arguing over words without regard to the content of those words. In other words, you are endorsing a pattern of reasoning which logicians would condemn as the “word-concept” fallacy. What you said in your last comment didn’t let you “escape” that charge, but rather it seemed to show (if I haven’t misunderstood you) that you just don’t care. This might be a reasonable position for you to take–logicians, after all, are not inspired by God and just becuase they think something is a fallacy doesn’t mean that it is. But, whether it is a fallacy or not, the basic pattern of reasoning which is labelled “the word-concept fallacy,” is exactly the pattern of reasoning you are employing. You are saying that the words used determine whether one is out of bounds with the Confession, rather than the way those words are used. This is what you have to say if you believe that (2) is true.

    Well, Xon, what’s wrong with saying this, then? Maybe the “word-concept fallacy” isn’t really a fallacy. What’s your response to that? My response to that is that it really seems like it is a fallacy, or else the following two statements are mutually exclusive of one another:

    US1: In 1835 the U.S. government sanctioned Christianity in certain ways.
    US2: In 1835 the U.S. government did not sanction Christianity in any way.

    Now, if “sanction” means the same thing in both US1 and US2, then these two statements cannot both be true. But if the meaning of “sanction” is different in US1 and US2, then both propositions are be true. And, of course, this is the answer, because “sanction” does indeed admit of diverse meanings. If in US1 “sanction” means “lend support to” or something like that, but in US2 it means “punish” or something like that, then there is nothing wrong with the same person saying both US1 and US2, or with one person saying US1 and another saying US2, or with some “confessional” document used to measure the propriety of people’s beliefs saying one and a person being measured saying the other. If we understand “sanction” to have different meanings in each proposition, then there is no contradiction. And, here’s the kicker, if we assume that the meaning is the same when it is quite obvious that they do not have to be, then we commit a fallacy. We “equivocate” on the meaning of “sanction”, or we commit the “word-concept fallacy.” (These two fallacies are not quite the same, acc. to most logicians, but for our purposes here it seems legit to just use them as roughly synoymous.) But this sort of equivocation is exactly what a rule like (2) would commit us to when comparing Presbyterian ordinands and the Confession. We cannot rationally assume that the meanings are the same, yet this is just what (2) requires us to do.

    Finally, you yourself admit that Scripture does not always use thse “ordo salutis” terms in the same way that the Confession uses them.

    Yes, exegesis does reveal that Scripture uses these words sometimes (much rarer than the FV posits) in a different way. I would argue, however, that the majority usage of biblical words and ideas is what makes the life-blood of the WS.

    The problem that I see with what you say here is that it does not matter how rare such occurrences are in Scripture. As soon as you admit that it happens even once, then (2) entails that we cannot use the same words that Scripture uses to describe certain situations. Surely this is an unacceptable position, and thus (2) is false. I asked you earlier about the usage Paul makes of “sanctified” to describe all children who have one believing parent: “So, when a pastor stands up to preach this particular text, can he use the word “sanctified” to talk about a mass of people, many of whom are not elect, or can’t he?” You haven’t answered this question directly yet, and I’m not trying to be a show off by pointing that out. Your answer is important for where we go from here, I think. So, can he or can’t he? If he can, then (2) is false. If you say that he cannot, then surely you understand why other people are skeptical. You are actually saying that a modern preacher cannot preach from Paul’s text and use the same word that Paul uses to describe these children? And you are saying this because of a 17th century document written by men? I know that this is not what you are saying, Lane, so forgive me for even considering it.

    But, since this is not your position, then (2) is false, even for “ordo salutis” words (since “sanctification” is an ordo salutis word). It is okay to use words differently than the Confession uses them, whether in a context of “systematic theology” or any other context. What is important is that we understand properly the ways the words are being used, and that we interpret both the Confession and the speaker/writer (such as Wilkins) accordingly.

    Again, I had thought that this was something we already agreed on, but now you seem to be saying that the mere usage of the same words in different ways puts Wilkins out of bounds with the Confession, which frankly undoes much of the “fruitful discussion” we have already had. I am a bit concerned about this, understandably.

34. 

    greenbaggins said,

    January 18, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    Yes, I think you have misunderstood what I’m saying, Xon, so, in setting the record straight, I hope you will see that I have not undone any of our fruitful discussion, even according to your own point of view. In endorsing position number 2, I am not using the word “inappropriate” in the sense of “contradictory.” I am using it in the sense of “extremely unwise.” The word itself is a bit ambiguous, of course. I do believe that Scripture does sometimes use words in additional ways to the WS. My point is that, *in systematics,* if one wants to avoid confusion, one should not change definitions of ST terms to something else. I further argue that the ST categories that we have are Scripturally and exegetically derived. It seems to me that Wilkins is erecting an entirely different set of categories (from the WS), making that his bedrock, and trying to keep his set of categories and the WS set of categories from eliminating each other. It’s a juggling act, in other words. The problem with juggling, of course, is that unless one is a master, one cannot hold up all the balls at once without dropping one. So, to sum up, I hold to number 2 as defined in the first part of this paragraph. To state it a bit clearer: “It is extremely unwise to describe NECM’s using the terminology that the WS only use to describe the elect.” While we might be able to keep words and concepts distinct, our sheep often cannot. The reason I hold to number 2 is that no ordo salutis categories can apply to NECM’s. You admitted this when you agreed that Augustine’s City of God places NECM’s in the fundamental category of non-elect. The question is: how solid is the boundary between ECM’s and NECM’s? I would argue that the boundary is completely impenetrable, solid, and firm. There is no crossing the boundary. I would also question whether Wilkins would agree with what you have said on the Augustine thing.

    So, do you think that Wilkins has crossed the line on forgiveness of sins? You seem to admit that I have at least a plausible argument. How plausible is it?

35. 

    David Gadbois said,

    January 18, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    Lane and Xon, if I could make a global comment about these discussions. At this point I literally don’t see how Wilkins could be outside WS even if HE WAS TRYING to be an Arminian, if we follow Xon’s logic. This is an indirect argument, but it is a good indication that Xon’s philosophical contortions are following an illegitimate hermeneutic of our confessions.

    After all, was not WS trying to exclude the idea of a justified/forgiven non-elect person as a category available in the various non-Reformed alternatives (Romanist, Lutheran, and Arminian)? That’s why Chap. 11 says that those who are justified, God continues to forgive. This statement would be redundant or a fairly useless tautology if it was not trying to exclude this idea.

    And I’m not going to let you take the “out”, Xon, in saying that Wilkins isn’t using those words in the same way as Westminster. The onus is absolutely on Wilkins to prove that in a meaningful way:

    1. He has provided no alternative definition of terms such as “justification.” It is not legitimate to posit the existence of such a concept if there is no propositional or cognitive content to it (and the substance of it’s distinction from WS’s term). Theological terms cannot just be empty containers, symbolic of nothing (or some yet-to-be-determined content).

    2. Saying that his term is qualitatively/ontologically different is not an answer. This, at best, a formal harmonization, but this is not a substantive explanation.

    3. Wilkins steps on a land mine when he uses Romans 8 in his ostensibly parallel soteriological scheme. The game is up when he does this, and shows his system to have substantive overlap with WS. This section of Scripture (and surrounding chapters) not only speaks of benefits such as justification - it defines and explains what these benefits are. And these are the benefits WS speaks of. So Wilkins cannot be attaching different definitions to these terms, since Romans is an extended exposition of what these benefits are. And it is using ‘justification’ here in the full sense - imputation of Christ’s righteousness, tied into other elect-only benefits, etc.). So Wilkins and Xon can’t just swap terms and definitions around to avoid formal contradiction, as if these terms were tupperware that you can store anything inside of as we interface with Scripture.

    Wilkins is putting WS’s goods into his tupperware, and slapping the label “qualitatively different” on the label.

    Nice for philosophical games, not so good for a coherent systematic theology.

    This also shows Wilkins to be an incompetent exegete. Assuming he would still stand behind his written teachings at this point, it probably disqualifies him as a competent Minister of Word and Sacraments anyway. I doubt my classis would ordain someone who “breaks” the Golden Chain of salvation and posits the category of a group who get some, but not all, of those benefits. Nor would we ordain someone who apparently answers “God can” to the rhetorical questions “God justifies us, who can condemn us?”

    And, no, Xon, I’m also not going to let you dodge the systematic difficulties of Wilkins’ position. If his position cannot be squared, in any basic manner, to the global system that WS presents, not just at a few areas here and there, then he cannot be in accord with the Standards. And it shows, also, that your interpretation of the Standards in those more narrow areas is probably wrong.

    The “double jeopardy” problem has been an insuperable difficulty for non-Reformed views on justification and the atonement, and it is just as much a problem for Wilkins’ non-Reformed scheme.

36. 

    Xon said,

    January 19, 2007 at 7:57 am

    [Lane, I thought I submitted this comment yesterday afternoon at about 5 EST. But now I checked the site on my home computer and it ain't there. So I guess the internet ate it. Anyway, this version was banged out more quickly, and might not be quite as carefully-worded as the earlier version.Caveat lector.]

    This is a big relief, Lane. Forgive me for mis-reading you so badly!

    I can sympathize with what you are saying about it being “unwise” to use words in a different way, though I wouldn’t go quite that far. Of course this can be fairly confusing to the sheep, but 1. I don’t think Wilkins’ own congregation is all that confused, and 2. many things are confusing ( i.e. hard to understand and “keep straight” in our minds) by their very nature. This is not to deny the Confession’s teaching that matters pertaining to salvation can be discerned clearly by anyone who reads Scripture attentively. FV matters have more to do with the complex interaction between saved and unsaved people known as “the Church,” and how to best understand the realities that exist for those in the Church who are not finally saved (i.e., elect). This is not quite the same as asking “How might I be saved?” That question has a fairly simple answer: trust in Jesus Christ alone to do for you what you cannot do for yourself. 3. In an age of evangelicalism run amok, our own Reformed categories of salvation–terms like justification, sanctification, glorification, and the sometimes complex discussions that Reformed thinkers give to these things–are rather “confusing” to people. But this doesn’t mean that we are screwing up the basics of salvation. Quite the contrary: we are explaining salvation in a systematic way which enables it to be better understood by those who are willing and able to understand it better. Very simple and profound truths often can be debated and discussed in ways that are more complex and confusing, but this doesn’t mean that the original truth in question isn’t simple. I dunno, I can say more about this later if need be.

    One final comment on Wilkins being confusing. Even if you’re right, I’m having trouble seeing how we could take the next step and justify defrocking him simply for being confusing. If you think that he himself keeps things straights, but he just teaches it in a way that is not all that clear, then he sounds like a lot of preachers I have known in my life (and I would say such preachers often still had very positive effects upon their congregations, for whatever that’s worth)! If your claim is that Wilkins himself gets things mixed up, then that’s what we’re here discussing. If Wilkins is himself confused about how salvation works, for instance, then obviously this is worthy of church courts. If Wilkins himself understands and affirms basic Reformed soteriology but then teaches it in a confusing way to his congregation, though, then this does not seem to be such a matter for church courts. But I’m not an expert on church courts. In any case, the charge would have to be different. Accusing a man of being a confusing teacher of orthodoxy is not the same as accusing him of being a heretic. Okay, moving on…

    You admitted this when you agreed that Augustine’s City of God places NECM’s in the fundamental category of non-elect. The question is: how solid is the boundary between ECM’s and NECM’s? I would argue that the boundary is completely impenetrable, solid, and firm. There is no crossing the boundary. I would also question whether Wilkins would agree with what you have said on the Augustine thing.

    This is a nice way to express the disagreement–how solid is the boundary between ECMs and NECMs? But I don’t see how we can doubt that Wilkind would affirm that NECMs are “closer” to non-elects than they are to elects: after all, they are non-elects! The real issue is whether Augustine’s categories of “city of man” and “city of God” actually line up precisely to “non-elect” and “elect”, which I don’t think they do. But if we stipulate that they do line up this way, then I don’t see anywhere (but maybe I’m missing it) where Wilkins is out of step with saying that the NECMs always belong in some real sense to the “city of man” and never to the “city of God.” NECMs are, after all, a type of non-elect person, and non-elect people (for Wilkins, just like for every other Reformed theologian) are predestined to Hell. No matter what blessings are showered upon them in this earhtly life through their connection to the visible church, the fact remains that God in His eternal decree has not predestined them to live with Him eternally in glory, and the fact remains that God’s providential activity in the world is actively working to bring that person to his final end of perdition, which ain’t good for that person. This has to color our perception of whatever blessings he experiences for a time. To perversely modify Newton’s great hymn, When he’s been there ten thousand years, bright burning as the sun, he’ll have trouble feeling like he was ever part of the “city of God.” And we would have trouble saying that he was, too, except perhaps temporarily, but a temporary membership only brings greater judgment upon you in the long run when you’re non-elect. This is all stuff that everybody (I think) in this conversation would say.

    So, do you think that Wilkins has crossed the line on forgiveness of sins? You seem to admit that I have at least a plausible argument. How plausible is it?

    All in due time, precious, all in due time!

    (”Due time” being….soon. And by “soon” I don’t mean it the way that most evangelicals take the “soon” in Revelation 1:1.)

37. 

    pduggie said,

    January 19, 2007 at 8:48 am

    I can be assured I’m elect, but I can’t know it in the same way I know brute facts.

38. 

    Xon said,

    January 19, 2007 at 8:50 am

    He has provided no alternative definition of terms such as “justification.” It is not legitimate to posit the existence of such a concept if there is no propositional or cognitive content to it (and the substance of it’s distinction from WS’s term). Theological terms cannot just be empty containers, symbolic of nothing (or some yet-to-be-determined content).

    Yet in the earlier thread (”Rejoinder to Barlow”), Comment #40, you argued like this about WCF 11.5’s use of “those that are justified”:

    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.

    So, when I tried to plug in “usage definitions” for 11.5, you told me what I was doing was illegitimate b/c 11.5 just talks about “those that are justified”, whatever exactly “justification” means. You said that it excluded non-elect people from being justified, but didn’t offer any particular definition of what that term means. It is simply excluding non-elect folks from “justification”, from the very word itself.

    I’m not trying to “get” you, and I’ll respond to the rest of your comment later. But for now this inconsistency jumps out at me. You insist that Wilkins always has to define his terms explicitly, and that if he doesn’t so then we are allowed to assume that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing who is actually using the words in exactly the same way that the Confession uses them in order to subvert the teaching of the Confession. Aside from how ridiculous and uncharitable this is as a hermeneutical principle (and it is a principle I doubt you apply to anyone other than FV people), it is a principle that you yourself did not follow in the earlier discussion. In fact, you tried there to argue that my reading of the Confession was wrong because I was putting too precise of a definition into the Confession’s mouth. The Confession is actually just using “those that are justified” in 11.5 in a vague way that could theoretically include all kinds of people. The content of “justified’ is, we might say, yet-to-be-determined. So, in your opinion the writers of the Confession were allowed to speak this way, but Wilkins isn’t?

39. 

    greenbaggins said,

    January 19, 2007 at 9:53 am

    Xon, I appreciate the response, although it did not seem to me to add much to your other arguments. It seems to me that you need fundamentally to answer the plausibility argument of whether Wilkins fudges on forgiveness first (I know, all in good time). I think that his fudging on that really does make the boundary between NECM’s and ECM’s permeable and porous. The reason I think that is that he is applying an ordo salutis category to the NECM. I would add here that *any* of the ordo salutis benefits guarantee the whole chain. The chain is unbreakable. So Wilkins has to affirm that the chain is breakable.

    To add a bit to what I’m saying: forgiveness *cannot* be taken out of the realm of justification, which is most certainly an ordo salutis benefit.

    Awaiting your response to the forgiveness issue.

    Paul, are you just trying to get my Van Tillian goat here?

40. 

    Xon said,

    January 19, 2007 at 10:43 am

    Quoth David G.:

    Lane and Xon, if I could make a global comment about these discussions. At this point I literally don’t see how Wilkins could be outside WS even if HE WAS TRYING to be an Arminian, if we follow Xon’s logic. This is an indirect argument, but it is a good indication that Xon’s philosophical contortions are following an illegitimate hermeneutic of our confessions

    I don’t think this is a fair criticims of what I am doing here at all, David, “indirect” argument or no. There are very clearly things Wilkins could say which would put him contrary to the Confession, and these things are predictable. I am not offering some weird ad hoc rationalizations of his words that refuse to ever let him be out of accord, no matter what he says. The whole point of my “propositional” method is just to interpret Wilkins’ words (and the Confession’s words) in a clear way so we can all look at the various teachings and see what is going on for ourselves. We have spent a month of “Wilkins says x”, “No he doesn’t”, and Lane and I are trying to find a better way.

    For one thing, Wilkins might be contrary to the Confession concerning forgiveness of sins for non-elect people. I haven’t yet responded to Lane’s full argument on this point, but it is a plausible argument on its face. And I can certainly stipulate, right now, what it would look like if Wilkins were to be out of accord with the Confession. You can then hold me to this later, if you want. Like I said in #62 under the “Rejoinder to Barlow” thread, if Wilkins taught the following he would clearly be out-of-accord with the Confession:

    W7: Some sinners who do not have a repentance that only goes to permanently justified people receive the pardon that accompanies permanently justified people.

    So, there I am on record. If you can show Wilkins teaching W7, then you’ve got him being contrary to the Confession and he would, at the very least, need to take an exception concerning the Confession’s teaching about forgiveness of sins.

    I am not dictating that W7 is the only thing that would show Wilkins to be out of bounds with the Confession. You certainly might suggest something else. But clearly you can’t blame me for not listing out every possible proposition that would be contrary to the Confession if someone believed it, since there is an infinite number of such propositions! But you should feel free to suggest your own proposition that you think Wilkins teaches which is contrary to the Confession, and we can look at it together, or you should feel free to present evidence that Wilkins teaches W7 if you want to go that route.

    As to Arminianism, you keep going this way in our conversations for some reason, but even many of your fellow critics of FV (such as Rick Phillips) don’t think that calling Wilkins an “Arminian” (or just implying that he is an Arminian) is at all helpful. But, to each his own, and let’s respond. We could easily show an (honest) Arminian to be out of bounds with the Confession, because an Arminianism affirms (at least) the following propositions:

    A1: There is no group of people whom God has predestined from the foundation of the world, based on nothing within the people themselves, to live eternally with Him in glory.

    A2: Christ’s work satisfying the law of God and dying as the substitute for sin was meant by God to apply to every single person who ever lives.

    A3: There is no effectual call to faith in Christ which God makes to a person without that person cooperating with the call in a way that does not involve any assistance from God at all.

    And we could easily show that the Confession denies A1, A2, and A3. (These three cover the “U L I” of TULIP. The “P” and the “T” are more complicated, because some Arminians believe in the “P” and some (Wesleyans) believe in the “T” at least in a theoretical sense. We could still give propositions for these Arminian positions too, and these also would clearly contradict the Confession, but doing so would take more time and I don’t see the need.)

    The Confession’s teaching that there are elect people, chosen by God based on nothing in themselves, contradicts A1. Its teaching that Christ’s atoning work was intended only to apply fully to those elect people contradicts A2. And its teaching that God sovereignly and irresistably brings about faith in elect people contradicts A3. (Of course, for the full argument we would need to go to the relevant portions of the Confession and convert them into “propositions”, too…but I really don’t think that’s necessary here.)

    If Wilkins taught A1 or A2 or A3, David, then I would stand with you and charge him with being outside the bounds of the Confession. But of course he nowhere (that I’ve seen) teaches any such thing, neither by implication nor explicitly. The point, though, is that the way I have been arguing is perfectly capable of acknowledging that Wilkins goes awry from the Confession if he does so. The whole point of what I am doing, in fact, is to make it really clear what these skewed places would have to look like so we can go look and see if Wilkins fits what we would expect to see. So, in other words, I categorically reject your argument that I am making it impossible to find fault with Wilkins no matter what he says.

    After all, was not WS trying to exclude the idea of a justified/forgiven non-elect person as a category available in the various non-Reformed alternatives (Romanist, Lutheran, and Arminian)? That’s why Chap. 11 says that those who are justified, God continues to forgive. This statement would be redundant or a fairly useless tautology if it was not trying to exclude this idea.

    Hm. As I understand things, the non-Reformed alternatives hold to something like the following:

    Lutherans and Arminians: No people are justified in the WS sense of “justified”, because the WS sense includes an irrevocable promise of final salvation. But Lutherans and Arminians deny that there is any such declaration of God to a sinner during our earthly life.

    Romanists: Similar to Lutherans and Arminians above, but with a much different definition of “justification” (a declaration of God that is based at least in part on the works the person has done).

    Wilkins’ view is none of these, though. Wilkins believes that some people (i.e. all of the elect) are justified in the WS sense of justification. He also believes that non-elect people who are in God’s covenant community for a time can be said to be “justified” in some other sense. Wilkins could be wrong, but his view is not contrary to the Confession the way that Lutheran, Arminian, and Romanist views are. You are right that the Confession distinguishes the Reformed view from these non-Reformed alternatives, but Wilkins holds to the distinct Reformed view. He then adds something that is “adiophora”, something neither condemned nor required by the Reformed view, about non-elect covenant members. Of course, you don’t want to let me answer this way on Wilkins’ behalf as you’ve already made clear:

    And I’m not going to let you take the “out”, Xon, in saying that Wilkins isn’t using those words in the same way as Westminster. The onus is absolutely on Wilkins to prove that in a meaningful way:

    1. He has provided no alternative definition of terms such as “justification.” It is not legitimate to posit the existence of such a concept if there is no propositional or cognitive content to it (and the substance of it’s distinction from WS’s term). Theological terms cannot just be empty containers, symbolic of nothing (or some yet-to-be-determined content).

    2. Saying that his term is qualitatively/ontologically different is not an answer. This, at best, a formal harmonization, but this is not a substantive explanation.

    3. Wilkins steps on a land mine when he uses Romans 8 in his ostensibly parallel soteriological scheme. The game is up when he does this, and shows his system to have substantive overlap with WS. This section of Scripture (and surrounding chapters) not only speaks of benefits such as justification - it defines and explains what these benefits are. And these are the benefits WS speaks of. So Wilkins cannot be attaching different definitions to these terms, since Romans is an extended exposition of what these benefits are. And it is using ‘justification’ here in the full sense - imputation of Christ’s righteousness, tied into other elect-only benefits, etc.). So Wilkins and Xon can’t just swap terms and definitions around to avoid formal contradiction, as if these terms were tupperware that you can store anything inside of as we interface with Scripture.

    Wilkins is putting WS’s goods into his tupperware, and slapping the label “qualitatively different” on the label.

    Nice for philosophical games, not so good for a coherent systematic theology.

    As I have already argued, (1) is inconsistent with your own treatment of the WS in earlier discussion. Inconsistency aside, though, it is a thoroughly unreasonable rule to lay upon someone that they bear the “onus” of proving that they use words in a different way than some other usage. Everyone knows that words do have a variety of meanings (almost every word in the dictionary, in fact, admits of a variety of meanings…and when “common usages” that might not be reflected in the dictionary are factored in, we have even more meanings for words). So why on earth should a person have to prove that they are using a word in a different way from some other meaning? If they say they are, then they are, unless you have some really strong evidence that they are not. But this sort of evidence should be able to be trotted out for all to see and evaluate. There is no “default” meaning for words. They mean what the speaker or writer uses them to mean. If the speaker’s definition diverges wildly from any other known usage (think “Humpty Dumpty” in Alice in Wonderland), then of course the speaker needs to explain his different meaning or else communication will break down. But nothing in this conversation is so wildly divergent as all that–basic communication is not breaking down for us. Wilkins says that thinks we can use words like “justify” for people who don’t go to Heaven when they die. He also says he’s not exactly sure what the best way to explain this “justification’ is, but whatever it is it’s not the same “justification” that people who do go to Heaven when they die receive. This is all he needs to say to establish that he is using the word “justify” in an alternative way to the WS usage when he applies it to non-elect covenant members.

    This isn’t just some desparate interpretation I am making here to try to exonerate him. The whole point of his article in the FV book, in fact, was simply to list out various passages of Scripture where he believes that certain WS “ordo salutis” words get used in different ways than the way WS uses them. He could be wrong about those Scripture passages, but how can you accuse him of using these words in the same way as WS when his whole point, explicitly made again and again, is that they are not being used in the same way? You think he contradicts himself later on? Fine, but the onus is on you to prove that.

    I agree with you that terms cannot just be “empty containers”, but they never are. If I say, “I think there are meanings of “sanction” besides “punish”,” I am not using “sanction” as a mere empty container. I have put some meaning into it–not a lot of meaning but some. I have put into the term’s ‘container’ something that it does not mean, and this is still something. If you say “What do you think ’sanction’ means besides ‘punish,’ Xon?”, and I say, “Gee, I dunno”, there is still nothing wrong with anything I have said. I have still given some content to the alternative use of “sanction”–namely, it is not the same usage as when “sanction” means “punish.” I do not have to know exactly what a word means in its alternative usage in order to posit that it does not always mean “punish.”

    This is not exactly what I think Wilkins is doing–I think he gives more content to terms like “justify” when applied to NECMs then just to say “it doesn’t mean what the Standards say”. But this only makes my argument for Wilkins stronger; if all he did was what I did above when “sanction”, your argument against him wouldn’t work. If he in fact does more than this, all the better for him (and all the worse for your argument against him).

    Again, consider my earlier argumetn to Lane about Paul’s usage of “sanctification” to talk about all children with at least one believing parent. Do I know exactly what “sanctification” means there? No (hypothetically…I do have my own ideas, and it’s not like this passage hasn’t been commented upon in the Reformed tradition or anything, I do not. But I do know that it doesn’t mean “sanctification” the way the Confession defines that term. It can’t be referring to the process by which God sets apart elect people to conform them more and more to the image of Christ, because not all children with one believing parent are elect. So, whatever Paul means here by “sanctification”, he doesn’t mean it in the WS way. But that’s okay, and I don’t even have to know exactly what he does mean to say that Paul is not violating the Confession.

    Regarding (2), Wilkins doesn’t say that “his term is qualitatively/ontologically different.” What it would mean for a “term” to be ontologically different? If you think I am being pedantic here, then I’m sorry, but the truth is that this is a key distinction to get and you are still talking about words and meanings of words as though they are the same. The fact that you worded yourself this way may just be a sign that you were typing quickly, or it may be a sign that you still aren’t properly grasping the distinction. I’m willing to be charitable here and interpret you in the latter way, but you should understand that when your own arguments fail to make clear these distinctions that to me are basic it is going to make me raise my eyebrow a bit.

    Moving on, then, what you apparently mean is that Wilkins (and myself) would claim that he uses these “ordo salutis” terms to refer to a reality that non-elect people experience which is qualitatively different than the reality which elect peole who are “justified” experience. You want to call “BS” on this claim, because “This [is], at best, a formal harmonization, but this is not a substantive explanation.” But this isn’t true, David. Wilkins does substantively explain the difference between the experience of NECMs and ECMs. He just doesn’t explain it by using “ordo salutis” terms exclusively for the ECMs. He explains it using other words. And, as we all know by now, the words aren’t what is important, right?

    Wilkins thinks that ‘ordo salutis’ terms can be used to describe NECMs, but he doesn’t think that the reality that the Confession is describing when it uses those terms can be said to go to NECMs. There is a reality experienced by NECMs which we can call “justification”, but it is not the same reality that the Confession is talking about when it uses the term “justification”. Nonetheless, we can use this word to talk about it.

    The only way to show that someone like Wilkins, who takes this sort of approach, is contrary to the Confession is to show a place where his use of these terms, when properly interpreted, actually go against a statement the Confession makes, when all of its terms are properly interpreted. Metaphors about empty tupperware and claims about the lack of a “substantive explanation” don’t do the argumentative work that you need to do here.

    Regarding (3), Wikins does not agree with your interpretation of what Romans 8 is talking about. He thinks it is an example of using “ordo salutis” words to talk about elect and non-elect covenant members together. He may be wrong in his interpretation, but you cannot impute to him the meaning that you think comes from these verses. That’s just silly.

    So, for all these reasons (and more), I think you are just wrong, and wrong in a striking sort of way, the sort of way that would probably embarrass you if you re-read this conversation after a lot of time has passed, in your claims that Wilkins is using terms in the Confessional defintiion by some sort of default, and that he is obligated to explain his meaning precisely to your satisfaction or else you are justified (pun! pun!) in imputing the WS meaning to him. This is, as you are fond of saying, a “train wreck” of an argument, David.

    This also shows Wilkins to be an incompetent exegete. Assuming he would still stand behind his written teachings at this point, it probably disqualifies him as a competent Minister of Word and Sacraments anyway. I doubt my classis would ordain someone who “breaks” the Golden Chain of salvation and posits the category of a group who get some, but not all, of those benefits. Nor would we ordain someone who apparently answers “God can” to the rhetorical questions “God justifies us, who can condemn us?”

    Well, this is a separate issue, and one worth considering in its proper place. Certainly if a minister makes egregious errors in the way he interprets the Bilbe, even if he remains in doctrinal conformity to the Confession, then that minister is rightfully subject to review by his presbytery or classis (if you’re into the whole Dutch thing). But this is a completely different charge than the original “FV is heresy.” A bad exegete might be perfectly orthodox. (An example I’ve given before: If a man somehow read Amos 1:1 as teaching predestination, then this would make him a bad exegete. But it wouldn’t put him out of conformity to the Confession, since predestination is a Confessional doctrine.) Of course, he might not be orthodox, but this is a separate question.

    And, no, Xon, I’m also not going to let you dodge the systematic difficulties of Wilkins’ position. If his position cannot be squared, in any basic manner, to the global system that WS presents, not just at a few areas here and there, then he cannot be in accord with the Standards. And it shows, also, that your interpretation of the Standards in those more narrow areas is probably wrong.

    David, you keep pitting “systematics” against what I am doing, but I don’t see the oppositon. Lane and I are having a very systematic discussion here. As to the second sentence of that paragraph just quoted, what do you mean by “global system” of the WS? Do you mean that there are lots of areas where Wilkins can be shown to be out of accord? Or are you referring to some sort of implicit meaning in the Standards that isn’t there explicitly?

    If the latter, then I don’t think you’re properly respecting the nature of confessional documents. We cannot hold men accountable to our understanding of what the document is really “trying” to say but for some reason didn’t actually say.

    If you mean the former, which is more likely I think, then you are just claiming what has already been claimed several times by your side, that Wilkins is out of conformity with the Confession in several places. Well, then, put up or shut up. This is the whole point of the discussion Lane and I are having–Lane presents a portion of the Confession that he thinks goes contrary to somethign Wilkins says, and then we look at it more closely. You are implying here that I have been “cherry-picking” certain select areas of the Confession to show that Wilkins is in confomrity wiht them. But that’s not right at all: I have been letting you and Lane pick the portions of the Confession that you think are contrary to Wilkins, and then looking at those portions more closely. (And, to be cleaer, I am not claiming that I am “winning” or anything. I think Lane has made some plausible arguments.) t is one thing to say “Wilkins doesn’t square with the global system that WS presents.” It is entirely another to actually show where Wilkins violates that “global system.” Can you show where? Then do so, please.

    The “double jeopardy” problem has been an insuperable difficulty for non-Reformed views on justification and the atonement, and it is just as much a problem for Wilkins’ non-Reformed scheme.

    You’ll have to say more about this. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “double jeopardy”. And I don’t know exactly why you think it is a problem. Sorry.

41. 

    Todd said,

    January 19, 2007 at 10:49 am

    Have we talked about 2 Peter 2:9 here?

    “8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

    Is the person described in verse 9 elect or reprobate?

42. 

    Xon said,

    January 19, 2007 at 10:49 am

    Lane, before we move on to the forgiveness issue directly, an we clarify one thing?

    Your answer to my question about a preacher using the word “sanctified” to talk about all children with at least one believing parent. I think your answer here is that you do think he is allowed to speak this way, but that when he starts doing “systematic theology” he needs to only stick to the WS usage of “sanctified”? Is this right?

43. 

    Xon said,

    January 19, 2007 at 10:52 am

    David G., my latest comment to you was “pricklier” than I intended it to be. Please accept my apology. I stand by the substance of what I said, though, ornery rhetoric aside.

44. 

    greenbaggins said,

    January 19, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    Xon, I think that is a fair way of representing the matter (comment 42). For the record, Todd, I’m sure you mean 2 Peter 1, not 2 Peter 2. I will deal with that passage in a separate post.

    Xon, in fairness to David, I think that David is arguing precisely what you stipulated he needed to argue: Wilkins argues for ECM benefits accruing to the NECM. I think that would be a fair estimate of David’s position. Why don’t you take specifically what David has said, and put it in the pro