By Faith Alone, part 2
February 2, 2007 at 3:44 pm (Books (reviews and recommendations), Federal Vision, Heresy, New Perspective on Paul)
I am not, in this total review, going to “give away” all the great discoveries that are in here, lest people be discouraged from buying the book from a too-thorough review. With that said, I proceed.
Guy Waters writes the introduction to the book. The title of the intro is “Whatever Happened to Sola Fide?” In this introductory essay, Guy Waters sets the scope of the book:
The renewed assault upon the doctrines of grace is coming from within the evangelical church itself. In what follows, we want to trace the background and development of two seemingly disparate movements that have surfaced within the evangelical and Reformed church- the New Perspective(s) on Paul and the Federal Vision. (pg. 21)
Of course, the scope is not limited to a demolition of these aberrant views. The scope of the book is really about setting forth the positive doctrine of sola fide, in elenctic dialog with the aforesaid aberrant views. This can be clearly seen from the way in which Waters goes about answering this question: “How have the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision challenged sola fide?” (pg. 22). His answer immediately goes back to what the Bible teaches positively about justification by faith. What follows is a helpful summary of the entire Gospel message that focuses on justification. Two paragraphs on page 23 are especially important: Waters says that it is in faith-union with Christ that believers receive by imputation our Lord’s obedience and satisfaction in justification (pg. 23). This is thorougly in line with what his teacher Dr. Gaffin says at WTS: union with Christ makes imputation in justification something that is not a legal fiction but the reality of the case. He further argues that mere forgiveness of sins is not sufficient: we must also have eternal life, which means that we need Christ’s merits. Christ’s merits exclude our merits, and thus we come to SOLA fide. Works play zero part in justification, ever. Period.
What follows then is a brief synopsis of the NPP and the FV. He notes that the “best-known proponents of the NPP do not identify with the creeds and confessions of the Reformation” (pg. 24). I might have a question for him here: does not N.T. Wright “hold” to the Thirty-Nine Articles, being Anglican? I would certainly grant that N.T. Wright does not hold to them in the same way that a PCA minister holds to the WS. However, it might seem necessary to grant that small point, at least. This is not really a quibble, since what I think Waters means is that NPP authors explicitly repudiate Reformed teaching as held in the great magisterial confessions.
Waters gives an admirably condensed account of the major players in the debate, starting with Krister Stendahl and ending with N.T. Wright. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the debate, this is actually a great place to start. One footnote I especially appreciated was note 5 on page 25: “We should note that many biblical scholars do not properly distinguish biblical religion, which is thoroughly gracious, from post-Old Testament Judaism, much of which was not. In this sense, much of first-century Judaism represents a declension from the Old Testament.” Waters destroys Sanders’s thesis in a single blow: “Sanders, however, is mistaken in concluding that just because Judaism made room for grace it was a thoroughly gracious religion” (pg. 26). I would definitely concur: getting in by grace and staying in by works is not a gracious religion. Otherwise, the OT Israelites should never have stayed in: they were always being disobedient, not obedient! See Duguid’s excellent article in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry. So, in asserting these conclusions, NPP advocates are attacking sola fide.
In the section on Federal Vision, Waters notes what is perhaps the major difference between the NPP and FV: the NPP originated in historical critical scholarship, while the FV originated from within the Reformed world itself. Waters is carefully nuanced on the relationship of the NPP and the FV, a hotly debated point. While noting that some authors have some affinities with some NPP emphases, he notes that “Federal Vision proponents are not all entirely agreed on which aspects of the New Perspective merit some degree of approval.” But one aspect in which they do often agree is in recasting justification in an ecclesiological context rather than in a soteriological context.
Waters attacks Federal Vision recasting of covenant theology on pp. 29ff. Waters defends the Covenant of Works by saying that “the covenant of grace is a covenant of grace to the elect because it is a covenant of works to Jesus Christ” (pg. 29, emphasis original). In effect, then, Waters asserts that the FV proponents take works out of the covenant of works and grace out of the covenant of grace. They do this by asserting so much grace in the Adamic administration that it can no longer be called Adam inheriting eternal life on condition of perfect and personal obedience. And then, in the covenant of grace, we have to stay in by our works. He says that “some Federal Vision proponents wrongly create a place for what is said to be the believers’s non-meritorious obedience in justification” (pp. 30-31).
So both the NPP and the FV “tell us ‘do this (with God’s help) and you will live’” (pg. 31). This constitutes a fundamental attack on sola fide.
Todd said,
February 2, 2007 at 4:20 pm
“But one aspect in which they do often agree is in recasting justification in an ecclesiological context rather than in a soteriological context.”
Rather than? Not both/and? Which FV authors would agree with this dichotomy?
Stewart said,
February 2, 2007 at 4:44 pm
I wish Waters would just write a commentary on Romans. I really want this to reach the exegetical level, and move away from the broad strokes of historical polemics. If he merely confines himself to the analysis of certain “movements,” he never has to engage in the exegetical debate. Twisting history is easy because he can be selective. Writing a full commentary and dealing with contemporary problems is real scholarship, and is much harder to do. This is why, as Wright points out, people have chosen to deal with him in a non-exegetical fashion. Waters is not doing “theology” he’s doing “politics,” and politics is easy.
greenbaggins said,
February 2, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I would certainly like Waters to write a commentary on Romans. I second that appeal to him. However, to say that Waters has ducked the exegetical debate is simply erroneous. His books are filled with exegesis! Furthermore, he engages in detailed exegesis of what these guys actually say.
Todd, I would certainly say that Schlissel, at least, has posited just such a dichotomy. Waters seems to indicate that Liethart does this, too. Furthermore, I wouldn’t say that it is necessarily and exclusive emphasis. It is more of a focus. Is justification soteriological, with ecclesiological overtones and ramifications? Or is justification ecclesiological, with soteriological overtones and ramifications?
Todd said,
February 2, 2007 at 4:57 pm
“Is justification soteriological, with ecclesiological overtones and ramifications? Or is justification ecclesiological, with soteriological overtones and ramifications?”
This is a much more responsible way of putting things. But it still doesn’t seem quite accurate to me for the FV guys. Don’t they usually speak in terms of “equal ultimacy” for this question?
And in connection with Gary’s accusation against Reformed Wright fans, this is an area in which each of them distances himself from Wright’s way of putting things.
Schlissel is a good answer, though. You might be right about him. But it’s hardly accurate or honest to describe his view as the FV view in general.
David Gadbois said,
February 2, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I’m getting warm fuzzies just reading this review of the book. I won’t be offended if Lane ‘accidentally’ faxes me over his pre-publication copy of the book. Can’t…wait…for…publication…gar…!
Anne Ivy said,
February 2, 2007 at 7:06 pm
As a practical matter, though, wouldn’t you agree that far more attention is paid to “ecclesiological” justification as opposed to “soteriological” justification? The former seems to receive the lion’s share of the emphasis, ISTM.
John said,
February 2, 2007 at 8:03 pm
You cite Waters as saying: “the covenant of grace is a covenant of grace to the elect because it is a covenant of works to Jesus Christ.” I must admit that I find this sentence puzzling and don’t know what to make of it. Could you explain it further?
I guess part of what baffles me is that I don’t remember reading anything like this in Scripture. But it’s also puzzling because it sounds like one and the same covenant (”the covenant of grace”) can be a covenant of grace to us (”the elect”) but a covenant of works to Jesus. How is it possible for one covenant to be both gracious and of works? And wasn’t Jesus elect?
Perhaps Waters (and perhaps you also) take it for granted that readers will know what this sentence means. But it ain’t the case. At least, not for this Three Forms of Unity man who was never taught anything like this. Any further explanation you can provide would be appreciated.
Anne Ivy said,
February 2, 2007 at 8:12 pm
That’s what I’ve understood….i.e. Christ accomplished that which we could not, i.e. live a perfectly righteous life in all respects, and it’s on the basis of His perfect life, death and resurrection that we are both saved out of hell and into glory.
Todd said,
February 2, 2007 at 11:15 pm
“As a practical matter, though, wouldn’t you agree that far more attention is paid to “ecclesiological” justification as opposed to “soteriological” justification? The former seems to receive the lion’s share of the emphasis, ISTM.”
What’s wrong with emphasizing something that has been minimized?
Anne Ivy said,
February 3, 2007 at 12:19 am
If you believe there is such a critter as “ecclesiological” justification - which I don’t particularly - nothing, I guess. ;^)
Isn’t that sort of the whole point? Whether justification can be separated as being either ecclesiological and soteriological?
So far’s I’m concerned, justification is soteriological.
Anne Ivy said,
February 3, 2007 at 12:20 am
Or. I meant “or” instead of “and” in the second sentence.
Going to bed now. Clearly I’m tired!
greenbaggins said,
February 3, 2007 at 10:06 am
John, it’s a good question. I think what Waters means is that Christ fulfills the covenant of works. That fulfillment, in turn, is the basis for our receiving the obedience of Christ by imputation in the covenant of grace. I don’t think Waters is saying that it is one and the same covenant. As a later article in the book will show, the covenant of redemption is the archetype for the covenant of works. It is really that covenant which provides the bedrock for the covenant of grace to be of grace to us. Hope this clears it up.
David McCrory said,
February 3, 2007 at 10:43 am
“Is justification soteriological, with ecclesiological overtones and ramifications? Or is justification ecclesiological, with soteriological overtones and ramifications?”
Yes. That’s like asking is God saving individuals or saving a host. He’s saving both.
David McCrory said,
February 3, 2007 at 10:44 am
I just thought…isn’t this the ole “the one or the many” debate? I haven’t read it, but I think Rushdoony does a good job treating this issue.
greenbaggins said,
February 3, 2007 at 10:47 am
I agree with you, David. Unfortunately, NPP and FV advocates are leaning toward the denial of individual saving justification in their over-emphasis on the corporate aspects of justification.
Todd said,
February 3, 2007 at 11:47 am
“NPP and FV advocates are leaning toward the denial of individual saving justification in their over-emphasis on the corporate aspects of justification.”
Leaning toward?
David McCrory said,
February 3, 2007 at 11:58 am
Lane, should not our own salvation, in some sense, be overshadowed by the overall work of God in redemption? God is saving individuals, but He’s doing much more than this. His is reestablishing all that was lost in the Fall. “As far as the curse is found”. It would appear, at first glance, when the Scriptures talk about the “Bride”, all the “elect”, the “Church”; all these bare an emphasis on corporate redemption. This is not to deny individual application of and salvation by the righteousness of Christ, but an avoidance of seeing my own salvation as God’s chief or final end, when it fact it is much grander.
Anne Ivy said,
February 3, 2007 at 1:03 pm
By all means we should not focus upon our personal salvation to the exclusion of the LORD’s greater redemption plan, but OTOH, there’s not a darn thing wrong with lovingly dwelling on it occasionally, as would Paul:
“For through the law I have died to the law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” (Galatians 2:19-20, bolding mine)
greenbaggins said,
February 3, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Amen, Anne. My point precisely. Look at the Philippian jailor as well: “What must I do to be saved?”
“Leaning toward” is scholarly understatement for “this is what they’re doing.”
David McCrory said,
February 3, 2007 at 2:04 pm
So, Lane you would agree with my post #17 but are suggesting FV guys aren’t doing this in a “balanced” fashion. So it becomes a matter of degree of emphasis that mitigates this area of the debate?
Anne Ivy said,
February 3, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Who was it - I really don’t recall - who claimed “What must I do to be saved?” is “the wrong question”?
Absolutely floored me, it did. =8^o
Xon said,
February 3, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Anne, what if that person was saying it’s the wrong question because it’s possible to already be secure enough in God’s grace (we can be assured we are elect, after all) that you don’t keep murmuring “by grace along through faith alone b/c of Christ alone” over and over again. You have already absorbed that mantra into your bones, and so now you are ready to serve God in gratitude. You ARE saved, so why not ask “Okay, where do I go from here? How can I serve God today?” Or even “What does God require?”
It was Schlissel, by the way.
Xon said,
February 3, 2007 at 10:32 pm
If the Phillipian jailer woke up every morning for the rest of his life after his conversion, and kept asking “What must I do to be saved?”, wouldn’t we think something was wrong? Perhaps something about needing to get off the milk and move on to solid food?
(And I don’t mean that it’s never appropriate to return to the question of “What must I do to be saved?” once you are saved. Of course we need to “preach the Gospel to ourselves” throughout our lives. Some people are particularly prone to a legalistic sort of personality, and they definitely need to be held in check by frequent reminders that it is all of grace, from beginning to end. And all of us need to be reminded of this basic truth at some time or other. But I’ve also seen in my short lifetime people who simply try to serve God FROM their renewed hearts, only to be looked at with suspicion of being a pharisee. But if their hearts are renewed, then they aren’t pharisees. The wonders of God’s grace should be capable of enabling us to “move on” to a different focus in our relationship with God. Since we ARE indeed saved by grace alone from beginning to end, let’s serve God cheerfully. How do I do that? If a person comes to ask this question in their daily life, why are so many Reformed people prone to treat them like a pharisee?)
And, yes, I really do think this is all Schlissel is getting at when he makes these kinds of comments.
david said,
February 4, 2007 at 12:53 am
Lane wrote above -
“I agree with you, David. Unfortunately, NPP and FV advocates are leaning toward the denial of individual saving justification in their over-emphasis on the corporate aspects of justification.”
Say what? Who? Where? I want names. Lane, I really think that such an accusation is a woeful overstatement. NONE of the men in question - the unnamed ones in the report that is - have in the slightest way denied or ‘leaned toward’ the denial of individual saving jusitification in any way. You really should withdraw that, at least as touching on the so-called FV men. Perhaps you have some NPP fellow in mind. Care to name names and link us to the sermon?
Perhaps as in the old parable of the drunk falling off his horse first this way and then that, some people may have over-emphasized a congregational dimension to justification. But given the radical individualism of American Evangelicalism this is hardly surprising, nor is it unwelcome. We need a extra shot of expresso truth on the fact that many Christians today embrace a ‘churchless’ christianity, and some even advocate it (silly old Barna springs to mind). The ‘Just me and Jesus’ crowd, as well as the ‘I have my justification membership card right here with me - got it without the church, on TV with ___________ and no I don’t live for Jesus very much, but I am once saved, always saved, and I sure got saved - see, there’s my signature on the decision card, right there…’ approach is what ought to be drawing the ire and fire of most of the blog space.
But no. Let’s beat up on the fellow who teaches that justifcation by faith alone is a faith that is never alone, and is a living faith to boot. Man, now that sure is scary! Those guys must be stopped!
Go back to the original accusation - the men in question preach that church membership via baptism equals justifcation and salvation. That’s rubbish as well. But at least its the original slam. This new one appears to me to based firmly in mid air.
Stunned by this remarkably false accusation,
David
Anne Ivy said,
February 4, 2007 at 9:56 am
Xon wrote: “If the Phillipian jailer woke up every morning for the rest of his life after his conversion, and kept asking “What must I do to be saved?”, wouldn’t we think something was wrong? Perhaps something about needing to get off the milk and move on to solid food?….
How many people are actually doing that, though? I’m not saying there might not be some at the Bible church I attend who frets and fixates on the state of their salvation, but it’s hardly a big problem requiring a wholesale doctrinal shift to address it.
It appears to me, at least, that a goodish amount of the FV (depending upon which “flavor” of it one is listening to, of course…there’s a definite variety) is designed to fight problems that are not problems for most of the Reformed church, such as antinomianism or a morbid introspection regarding one’s salvation or a tendency to harshly judge everyone else’s salvation.
No offense, gentlemen, but what the heck is going ON at your churches, anyway?
Christ Chapel most certainly has its problems, but - praise God! - those are not among them.
Point is, if these are not widespread problems and there are plenty of Reformed congregations not having to wage war against them (which I believe is true), ISTM in those churches where these problems do exist, the remedy is not to devise new, “improved” doctrinal twists but instead to find where the doctrine being taught is off-center and move it back to where it needs to be.
David Gadbois said,
February 5, 2007 at 12:31 am
“Go back to the original accusation - the men in question preach that church membership via baptism equals justifcation and salvation.”
Apparently you missed the threads Lane did on Wilkin’s theology. Unfortunately, that is exactly what he teaches but he qualifies it by saying that the “justification and salvation” are different from the Westminsterian sense. But he’ll still tell you that you have forgiveness of sins, for a time, if you are baptized and non-elect (until that one apostatizes). This was all covered in Lane’s response to Wilkin’s presbytery exam.
Xon said,
February 5, 2007 at 7:22 am
Right, and this qualification changes everything, David. If I say that “God hates His people”, but I am using the word “hate” in some really weird way, then there might not be anything wrong with what I say. We’d have to look at the definitions of the words. Granted, “hate” doesn’t really admit of any wacky definitions that I can think of, and I don’t think people can go around just making up completely new meanings for words, but this is not what FV people are doing. They are getting their “new” meanings from arguments from the Scriptures, at least arguably. Their exegesis may be off, but even if it is the meanings they are giving to the words are fairly easy to distinguish from the meanings Westminster gives to those same words. To just say “Wilkins teaches that baptism brings justification and salvation” and leave it at that, as thought this is an inherently un-Confessional position, commits the fallacy of equivocation b/c the words don’t have the same meaning in the two sources (Confession and Wilkins). To recognize this fact by acknowledging that Wilkins “qualifies” his words only makes the anti-Wilkins incomprehensible. If you see that he qualifies his words with different usages than the Confessional usages, then how can you say that it’s automatically a problem to say what Wilkins says?
Xon said,
February 5, 2007 at 7:25 am
Anne, I’m open in principle to having a discussion about whether the FVish folks have properly identified a real problem in Reformed churches (I think they have). Perhaps you are right and these are not really problems to the extent that FVers think they are. Perhaps the “TR” emphases are really what most of the Church still needs to hear, and the FV emphases are only correcting a very small portion of people. This is the sort of debate I would expect two Reformed subgroups to have with one another, all under the assumption that both sides are orthodoxy and confessional. But that’s not what’s happening here: FVers aren’t just being accused of over-emphasizing this or that in response to this or that problem which isn’t really all that widespread; they are accused of departing from Reformed orthodoxy altogether. This accusation has to be backed up with more than “the problem they are trying to address isn’t as widespread as they think it is”. Or am I wrong?
Anne Ivy said,
February 5, 2007 at 8:43 am
Well, Xon, I did refer to a “wholesale doctrinal shift” and “new, ‘improved’ doctrinal twists”, not merely placing a bit more emphasis on this instead of that.
Twisting baptism until it bears a truly startling resemblance to baptismal regeneration is not a small error. It’s a pretty whacking big error. Saying that everyone baptized is saved without taking care to be very specific and explicit as what sort of “saved” is being talked about is not a small error, either. Teaching there exists the theological equivalent of the Easter Bunny, i.e. a “nonelect believer”, is a rather huge error.
Granted, some of the errors are more serious than others, and most of ‘em don’t fall into the “Then you’re not saved at ALL!” category, instead falling outside of traditional, historic Reformed parameters, but that certainly doesn’t mean a denomination hasn’t the right or obligation to attempt to protect its members from them.
A lot of trouble and angst would have been avoided if certain pastors had submitted their “doctrinal improvements” to their respective denominational authorities prior to teaching them.
That’s America for you, though. Individualism is so rife here it doesn’t occur to those pastors who belong to denominations that they don’t “own” their pulpit, and instead have a responsibility to make certain what they’re teaching squares with what their denomination teaches.
david said,
February 5, 2007 at 9:11 am
David,
I didn’t miss a line of Lane’s response to/evaluation of Wilkin’s exam. My point is that the post above makes a false accusation - so far as I can tell. It has nothing to do with Wilkins exam or Lane’s interaction with that.
Best regards,
David
greenbaggins said,
February 5, 2007 at 10:20 am
My conclusions regarding individual salvation can be argued in this fashion: 1. The NPP (for instance) denies the Reformational understanding of justification by faith alone; 2. if one denies justification by faith alone, then one denies individual justification by faith alone in the Reformational sense; 3. if one denies justification by faith alone in the Reformational sense, then one denies salvation in the Reformational sense; 4. Therefore, if one denies the Reformational understanding of justification by faith alone, then one denies individual salvation in the Reformational sense. 5. With number 1, then, the NPP denies individual salvation.
Xon said,
February 5, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Lane, it seems awfully unclear to add (5). Why not just stop with (4), since this is really all you mean by (5) anyway? It might sound to the uncharitable ear like you are adding (5) at the end because it is “punchier.” (5) makes a person think something like “Ooh, they deny ‘individual salvation’ full stop, period, in any sense. I didn’t know that! Thanks for sounding the alarm….” But (4) is not nearly so condemning…”Hm, they deny the individual salvation in the Reformational sense. Well, what is that sense exactly, and in what way do they deny it?”
The other concern with the above argument is that (1) is ambiguous. When we accuse someone of denying the “Popoluosian understanding” of such-and-such, what exactly are we accusing them of?
Any disagreement with any particular detail of the Popoluosian view might qualify as “denying the Popoluosian understanding,” right? Suppose that Popoluosian’s believe that volcanoes are the blowhole of Hades, and that their eruptions indicate that the city has angered Hades. Well, I might be seen as “denying” the Popoluosian understanding of volcanoes if I hold any of the following:
A. I believe that volcanoes are the blowhole of Hades, but that sometimes Hades just erupts them on cities even though the city has done nothing to anger him, because that’s just how Hades rolls…
B. I believe that volcanoes are the blowhole of Hades, but that sometimes other gods manage to take control of them and pour out wrath on cities that have ticked them off.
C. I believe that volcanoes are the blowhole of Poseidon….
D. I believe that volcanoes are not the blowhole of any deity at all. I am a volcanic atheist.
E. I don’t believe in volcanoes.
Any of these could be considered a “denial” of the Popoluosian view of volcanoes, but these are some pretty drastically different positions. Also, depending on how “strict” one is being, some of these aren’t really that big a deal. I mean, if I held to A, then to most people in the world I would still look like a Popoluosian. If still believe that Hades blows lava out of volcanoes on purpose to kill humans when he feels like it, I just disagree as to what his reasons are for doing so. Would my disagreement really be significant enough to warrant calling me a “departer from Popoluosian orthodoxy?” It would all depend, I suppose, on how central the imputation of angry motives to Hades is for the Popoluosian view. Is this really a key component of their view, so that anyone who denies it is really abandoning the whole shebang, or is it just a detail that, yes, they happen to believe but which really doesn’t affect their overall view of the world very much? Depending on how we answered that question, we might change the status of the “heretic” who believes A.
Just trying to help you tighten the argument. I think it has something to it, if these questions can be cleared up.
Xon said,
February 5, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Anne, sure you say that it represents a “wholesale doctrinal shift” and such, but I haven’t seen you provide any evidence that it departs from Reformed orthodoxy. Perhaps it isn’t such a “wholesale” shift at all, or perhaps there is room under the Reformed umbrella for some serious shifting. Why not? What’s the argument?
Remember that the original question I was answering was how a person could say that “How must I be saved?” is not the main question we should be focusing on. I pointed out why someone might say this, and in your recent response you seemed to agree with me that people should not focus on this. For instance, you say that “it’s hardly a big problem”, which entails that you agree with me that it is a problem for people to live this way (always asking (”How can I be right with God? How can I be right with God?”). You don’t think it’s a common problem that people actually have, but you agree that it is a problematic way of viewing the Christian life. Well, then, we agree that it’s problematic, and all I was doing was pointing out why someone might criticize it.
To recap. You (Anne) said you were “floored” when some unremembered FV person claimed that “What must I do to be saved?” is not the most important question for the Christian life. I pointed out why a person might say this. You then responded to me by saying that, sure it’s a problem to obsess with the question, but most people don’t. Well, if you agree it’s a problem to obsess in that way, then why were you so “floored” at the suggestion that “What must I do to be saved?” is the wrong question?
Anne Ivy said,
February 5, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Whoa! There is a significant difference between “not the most important question for the Christian life” and “the wrong question”, Xon.
Steve Schlissel, at AAPC in 2002, speaking on Covenant Hearing: “The question is commonly, what must I do to be saved? But that’s the wrong question!”
No. It is NOT “the wrong question.” It’s a darn fine question, AAMOF.
Todd said,
February 5, 2007 at 3:59 pm
But is it the main question? Is it the perspective from which we ought to read and hear the Bible, looking for answers to it?
Todd said,
February 5, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Anne, what do you believe Schissel is claiming? That it is wrong ever to ask that question? If not, just what is his point? One line out of context doesn’t tell us enough.
Anne Ivy said,
February 5, 2007 at 4:22 pm
If one isn’t saved it’s most assuredly the main question! If one hasn’t repented of one’s sins and placed his faith in the finished work of Christ, the popularly referred to “covenantal obedience” isn’t worth a flip and will accomplish nothing.
In context:
“The keeping of the commands of God identified as putting trust in God is contrasted with forgetting God and disobeying God. To be in the gospel is to be in the law, the law of God. The question has always been what does the Lord require? We have changed the question since Luther’s day. Perhaps imperceptible to some, but quite drastically if you look at it. The question is commonly, what must I do to be saved? But that’s the wrong question! The question is, what does the Lord require? If we don’t retool our churches, to turn around from the “What must I do to be saved?” to “What does the Lord require?” we are going to die. Because in answering one, what must I do to be saved, you move in the idea of sola, sola, sola, and then you have the sola fide and if you are only saved by faith apart from any activity or any response to God’s word and then what kind of faith is that?”
Todd said,
February 5, 2007 at 4:36 pm
“If one isn’t saved it’s most assuredly the main question!”
But the quotation you kindly provided makes it clear that Schlissel’s interest in this talk is not evangelism so much as discipleship, Christian maturity, and congregational ministry–how a pastor teaches his believing congregation to read and hear their Bibles.
I don’t love every phrase he uses (even in a small quotation!), but his main point–that the Bible is concerned with much more than individual salvation, and that is must be read with other questions in mind in order to be read rightly–sounds pretty good to me.
“If one hasn’t repented of one’s sins and placed his faith in the finished work of Christ, the popularly referred to “covenantal obedience” isn’t worth a flip and will accomplish nothing.”
Do you believe that any FV writer would disagree with this, Anne?
Xon said,
February 5, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Yeah, Anne, Todd’s already on this for me (you look away for a while….). I have already explained that “not the most important question” is what Schlissel means by “the wrong question.” Your response is to pounce on him because of the ways in which you think it might be “the right question.” This is yet another example of not understanding what the FVers are really saying. I know it’s frustrating to hear that, but there it is. This interpretation of Schlissel’s words is not difficult; is there anything odd or confusing about what I said in #s 22 and 23? At the very least, it is an interpretation that a bunch of people who have read and listened to him have come to. To condemn him for these words because of how you are interpreting them is folly.
Too blunt, but I’ve gotta run….
Anne Ivy said,
February 5, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Then why does he bring it up at all at a conference presumably stuffed full of believers?
What’s going on in those churches? I’m seriously inquiring. What’s going on that he’d feel it necessary to make such a statement?
It’s clear there must be something very different between the churches in which the FV has taken root and a Christ Chapel, for at Christ Chapel we who are saved don’t sit around chewing our lower lips and nibbling our fingernails, asking ourselves “Oh, my! What must we do to be saved?”
It’s odd how y’all seem to think this is natural and commonplace, but I really don’t think it is.
But then, I’ve never been Presbyterian. Maybe it is a problem in Presbyterian churches?
Todd said,
February 5, 2007 at 5:30 pm
“Then why does he bring it up at all at a conference presumably stuffed full of believers?”
A conference full of pastors. Right? It’s a talk about preaching and teaching and pastoral ministry. Pastoral hermeneutics, maybe.
What does the typical Christ Chapel member believe the “main question” for understanding the Bible is?
Anne Ivy said,
February 5, 2007 at 6:02 pm
How would anyone say “What must I do to be saved?” would be the “wrong question” at a PASTORS’ CONFERENCE? =8^o
If there is anywhere I’d expect such a question to get top billing, it’d be at a pastors’ conference.
Unless those pastors aren’t expected to interact often with unbelievers? That’d be strange.
If a conference is intended to help pastors with evangelism, then clearly “What must I do to be saved?” would be a terrific place to start.
If a conference is intended to help pastors with the spiritual growth of their congregation, I don’t see why “What must I do to be saved?” would even come up to be rejected.
“Main question” for understanding the Bible? Well, I can’t say I’ve thought about it before. At Christ Chapel it’s simply stressed that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, which tells the story of Christ, Genesis to the Revelation.
Todd said,
February 5, 2007 at 7:30 pm
“How would anyone say “What must I do to be saved?” would be the “wrong question” at a PASTORS’ CONFERENCE?”
Perhaps the answer is that if a pastor teaches a congregation to read their Bible with this as the only “background question,” their understanding of the whole counsel of God will be impaired and their Christian life will be stunted. God is not simply saving individuals; he has a much grander purpose. Reformed Theology 101!
My impression is that Piper gets some attention in the youth ministry at Christ Chapel, but I don’t know whether that “trickles up” into the “grown up” ministry. But Piper, of course, is a great corrective to self-centered, individualistic Bible-reading. The glory of God is more ultimate than individual salvation, and God is glorified in more than just individual salvation.
“If a conference is intended to help pastors with the spiritual growth of their congregation, I don’t see why “What must I do to be saved?” would even come up to be rejected.”
But it did come up, obviously. And I’m wondering if you’re changing your answer a bit as we go along. I don’t believe you were thinking of context when you brought it up at first, for example.
So, do you object to “the question” coming up at all, or do you object to its rejection as the main question?
Anne Ivy said,
February 5, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I object to its being condemned out of hand as “the wrong question.”
Yes, to be sure the redemption story is not Just About Saving Individuals.
But still, that’s how the kingdom is grown…through the salvation of individuals.
You know, such as “look out for the pennies and the dollars take care of themselves.” ;^)
Jesus was certainly interested in individuals as individuals, so it’s safe to assume taking an interest in individuals is a God-honoring course of action.
Concentrating on God’s Grand, Overarching Scheme without paying attention to individual sinners in need of salvation is akin to the person who devises all sorts of investment strategies without actually going out to find a job to earn the individual dollars to be invested.
Todd said,
February 5, 2007 at 8:15 pm
“I object to its being condemned out of hand as “the wrong question.””
You have returned to ignoring the context of his comment, as if the statement could be understood on its own.
Todd said,
February 5, 2007 at 8:30 pm
“Concentrating on God’s Grand, Overarching Scheme without paying attention to individual sinners in need of salvation is akin to the person who devises all sorts of investment strategies without actually going out to find a job to earn the individual dollars to be invested.”
Is this comment meant to be a criticism of Schissel’s own ministry?
Anne Ivy said,
February 5, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Huh? Oh. No. I don’t know anything about his ministry. In NYC, isn’t it?
I meant it as a general blech on the whole “Never mind the individual people, look at the Grand Scheme!” attitude so prevalent today.
Todd said,
February 5, 2007 at 9:10 pm
“I meant it as a general blech on the whole “Never mind the individual people, look at the Grand Scheme!” attitude so prevalent today.”
Any examples? If not Schlissel, who are you thinking of?
Anne Ivy said,
February 5, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Oh, mercy Maud! I’m so tired of the inevitable demand for citations and footnotes in conversations these days. It’s a pain in the caboose.
It’s a general impression. For corn’s sake, Todd, YOU just added to it with “The glory of God is more ultimate than individual salvation, and God is glorified in more than just individual salvation.”
Well, yes, that’s undeniably true, but it also ignores the “I tell you, in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous people who don’t need repentance” attitude of Christ.
In Acts the LORD reassured Paul thusly: “Then the Lord said to Paul in a night vision, “Don’t be afraid, but keep on speaking and don’t be silent. For I am with you, and no one will lay a hand on you to hurt you, because I have many people in this city.”
I love that: “I have many people in this city.” And let me tell you what, Todd…He knew precisely who they were, by name. According to Scripture the LORD has named each of His myriad stars individually; He knows exactly how many hairs are on our heads, He is aware of each and every sparrow in the sky, or that falls from it.
The Grand, Overarching Scheme is HIS business….the going out to find His “many people in [the] city” is OURS.
Christ Chapel has many members all over the city and world, looking for the LORD’s lost sheep, to bring them into His pasture.
IOW, Christ Chapel is doing just what the LORD commanded….going out to find His people, and bring ‘em home…one at a time.
Todd said,
February 5, 2007 at 11:20 pm
“Oh, mercy Maud! I’m so tired of the inevitable demand for citations and footnotes in conversations these days. It’s a pain in the caboose.”
I agree. Debates would go much more smoothly and quickly if exaggerated claims and vague accusations went unchallenged!
Anne Ivy said,
February 6, 2007 at 12:12 am
Thanks for the discussion, such as it was.
Xon said,
February 6, 2007 at 10:02 am
Anne, let me get this straight. You think that the FV has made a serious error at least in part because it over-generalizes how widespread a certain problem is. But then you yourself claim to see a “so prevalent” attitude today, and attitude that says “Never mind the individual people, look to the Grand Scheme!” What is your evidence that this attitude (among the Reformed?) is prevalent today? Well, you don’t really want to give any, and it’s just a “general impression”, but since we’re asking you accuse Todd of “adding to” this impression. And what did Todd say that “added to” this impression for you? Absolutely nothing that indicates he wants us to “Never mind the individual people.”
So, you are allowed to form “general impressions” about “prevalent” false beliefs among the Christian (or even the Reformed more particularly) community, and you are allowed to lump people into this impression on incredibly thin evidence, ‘evidence’ such as them saying something that doesn’t even amount to the false belief you find so prevalent. But, when FVers claim that there is a significant number of people who are focusing on the wrong question when it comes to Christian living, they get a tsk tsk from you for over-emphasizing the problem. What am I missing here?
Anne Ivy said,
February 6, 2007 at 10:58 am
If you two don’t get invited out to dinner much, there might be a reason.
I recall a time before the internet. Yes, hard to believe, but there it is. Once upon a time it was normal to discuss stuff without people demanding footnotes and proof of every word someone says with which one disagrees.
I’d point out I don’t tend to do that, but don’t suppose it’d make any difference.
It’s sad, really, how you two are incapable of holding a normal conversation.
Xon said,
February 6, 2007 at 11:24 am
A “normal” conversation about how we’re heretics, Anne? I haven’t had a lot of those, I admit. The rule is very simple: if you accuse someone of departing from the Reformed faith, you back it up with specifics.
If you want to proclaim your general impression that the Yankees are evil, or that paper bags or better than plastic, or that gossip is bad, etc., then I’m sure nobody is going to require any further ‘proof’ from you for those kinds of statements.
But the context of this particular discussion demands the higher standard of proof. And I’ve found this to be true in the “real” world, too, not just on-line.
Todd said,
February 6, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Xon’s right, I think. This has never been a “normal conversation.” The sections of Lane’s blog where we interact are devoted to polemics and debate. Lane says he wants his blog to be a scholarly one. You have jumped in on those same sections with a definite point of view, and sometimes with specific accusations against your brothers in Christ. Why is it impolite to ask for proof or examples? Some might call it iron sharpening iron.