Ego, Repentance, and the Federal Vision
March 29, 2007 at 1:03 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy)
Richard Baxter and John Owen once had a long drawn-out written debate. I don’t remember what the issue was. Owen was by far the better scholar, of course, and there was no way that Baxter would win. He didn’t win. Instead, after receiving a monstrously huge reply from John Owen that simply answered everything Baxter had rejected, Baxter’s response was remarkable. He said something to the effect of, “I should never have taken on John Owen in debate.” Baxter changed his view on the issue in question.
It seems fairly clear (and I think all sides would agree on this) that the FV is under attack. There is extensive written argumentation now on both sides of the debate. It is a parallel situation in many ways with Baxter/Owen. Of course, I personally would put FV in the position of Baxter, and the critics in the place of Owen.
What is the major obstacle to the FV repenting of their views? What is it that is the stumbling block? I believe it is the fact that so much emotional (and other) capital has been invested in the position, that to change one’s position would be seen as weakness on the part of any of the advocates. Almost every minister I know has an ego. I am certainly no exception. And I know that I myself have invested rather a lot of emotional capital in my critical position. And I know that I would personally feel weak if I changed into a FV advocate. I feel like I would lose the respect of many people whom I greatly respect. Probably FV advocates feel the same way.
What I am getting at, though, is that ego should not (though it often is) be the issue. The issue should be the truth. Is it possible to separate these issues? Baxter did it. Wes White did it:
John,
Yes. Indeed, by the grace of God I have changed. Here’s what happened. I was very much into the Federal Vision and Norman Shepherd for several years. I even met with Shepherd and other pastors to discuss all these issues over the course of that time.Coming out of Wesleyanism (my full name’s John Wesley White), I thought Shepherd’s theology (along with others) was the way to bring Arminianism and Calvinism together. I thought we could all come together in Canterbury with a moderate Calvinism and a strong institutional Church with bishops, high Church liturgy, and sacramentalism.
Then, the Lord hit me over the head with the idolatry of high Church Anglicanism. I was ready to join the Reformed Episcopal Church in seminary. I visited one of their affiliate Churches, and they had incense burning to crucifixes, prayers to and for the dead, idols of Mary, the mass, etc. It sickened my soul. In that moment, I understood the whole point of the Reformation. They were contending that the Gospel itself and hence Christ had priority over the institutional Church. In the over-exaltation of sacraments, the liturgy, the robes, the purportedly apostolically-descended bishops, something was lost, and what was lost was Christ and the Gospel.
After that rude awakening, I began to think that these old reformers had a point. So, I thought I might actually read them instead of looking in them for snippets to prove my point. I read Francis Turretin, Heinrich Heppe, Wollebius, Francis Pieper (to understand the Lutherans), and others. I found that these people actually understood both the errors of modern evangelicalism and the papacy and steared a Biblical course right down the middle (with Lutheranism slightly veering in the wrong direction!).
In regards to Shepherd, from that moment on my opposition obviously began. I studied him again over the past year as well as the justification controversies of the 16th and 17th century. I’ve come to the conclusion that Shepherd’s view track not primarily with Rome but with the Sociniano-Remonstrant viewpoint. I argued this at length in the recent Mid-America Journal of Theology.
Finally, the main point of all this is that whatever I counted gain before I know count as loss for the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ and to be found in Him not having a righteousness of my own from the law but a righteousness that is from God and by faith. When I hear the law, I do run in terror from it because on the basis of the law I have no righteousness before God and am damned eternally, and I do run to the Gospel because in Christ I have all that I need for an eternal and everlasting salvation.
Shepherd turns us away from Christ and unto ourselves, and this is what the FV, following him, also tends to do. I pray, John, that you will come to see that. And, of course, I still see it yet imperfectly, and what I need to learn each day more and more is that I have no righteousness of my own and a perfect one in Christ and so truly live as one who boasts only in the cross of Christ.
So, this is a call for repentance for FV advocates. I believe that the truth of the matter lies with the critics, who are rightly interpreting the Word of God, and the WS. It is no shame to change one’s position to the truth. (I am presupposing the truth of the critic’s position, of course. I have argued for this rather extensively on my blog.) In fact, one would gain the respect of the majority of the Reformed world, not lose it.
David Ponter said,
March 29, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Green Says: Of course, I personally would put FV in the position of Baxter, and the critics in the place of Owen.
David says: Well when I first saw that I was amazed. Can you give any information to back this up? You couldnt even remember the issue? Come on Green, surely you can see how gratuitous your statement here is? If you just throw out there accusations like this, sweeping generalisations, you will lose credibility for any historical work you propose.
Take care,
David
greenbaggins said,
March 29, 2007 at 1:18 pm
This is ridiculous, David. You completely misinterpreted my intentions. The analogy was a general analogy based on the situation. The point is Baxter’s repentance, which happened, and the issue of what it was they were debating is completely irrelevant to my point.
David Ponter said,
March 29, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Hey Green,
I am not trying to be rediculous.
Okay, so you are saying their debate is *like* this modern debate.
Thats the only association you were trying to make… okay… but
why? What point does it serve? Why introduce Owen and Baxter? You could’nt even recall the issue? Your use of them as an introduction has served nothing. I think you could have worded that a little better.
But thanks for the clarification. I have powered down my phaser canons (Hobbits sometimes carry phaser weapons;-)
David
Craig Phelps said,
March 29, 2007 at 1:42 pm
“In fact, one would gain the respect of the majority of the Reformed world, not lose it.” With a salute and open arms.
greenbaggins said,
March 29, 2007 at 1:44 pm
The reason I introduced Baxter was because of his amazing humility and willingness to admit that he was wrong and that Owen was right. The implied contrast is with FV advocates who are never, ever, ever, ever willing to admit that any of the tiniest details of their writings (their own or any of the other FV advocates) could *possibly* be in error. So, in a sense, I am calling on FV advocates for them to have the humility of Baxter.
Matt said,
March 29, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Okay,
You are so sweet so I decided to repent.
Feel better? :)
greenbaggins said,
March 29, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Absolutely, Matt. Although the issue here, of course, is not my own feelings, but the truth. Are you truly being serious?
David Ponter said,
March 29, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Hey Green,
Okay thanks. The association just threw me when I first read it. I appreciate your clarification.
David
Tim Wilder said,
March 29, 2007 at 2:01 pm
“I’ve come to the conclusion that Shepherd’s view track not primarily with Rome but with the Sociniano-Remonstrant viewpoint. I argued this at length in the recent Mid-America Journal of Theology.”
This is right on the money. Is this Mid-America journal available anywhere to real people, or is locked up in seminary libraries?
greenbaggins said,
March 29, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Tim, the article will eventually be published on the internet. If you want a copy, email me and I will mail it to you.
pdugi said,
March 29, 2007 at 2:19 pm
So the FV is Baxter (the presbyetrians who held to the WCF) and the critics are Owen (someone who LEFT prebsyetriansims to form Independency and write a new confession). And that comparison helps you how?
greenbaggins said,
March 29, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Paul, you are reading way too much into the comparison. The issue was one on which Baxter was wrong and Owen was right. Their church polity views were utterly irrelevant to the argument. I think the issue was justification.
Wes White said,
March 29, 2007 at 2:31 pm
RE: Baxter’s views.
Actually, I think that the comparison is far more apt than Lane may realize. Baxter was pressing just these sorts of issues. He said that he was not a Calvinist and not an Arminian. He held a similar view to the Arminians on justification.
If anyone is interested you can read the excellent book on it by Hans Boersma. It is entitled A Hot Peppercorn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Historical Context. His discussion of the active/passive obedience issue is helpful. He shows how Baxter went beyond those who denied the IAO.
If you have trouble finding the book, check out Antiqbook.com. It was published by Boekencentrum, so most copies available are in the Netherlands. I should add, though, that it is in English!
tim prussic said,
March 29, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I think it far more to the point to call EVERYONE in the FV debate to repentence, not just the sinners on the FV side. Just that call being addressed to only FVes itself seems prideful. It sound like: “We’re right. You’re wrong. Repent!”
In reality, we all need to repent of many things for we all stumble in many ways. In fact, we’ve all stumbled in many ways IN THIS VERY debate and discussion. Let us repent togethet, both of unbiblical doctrine (where it’s found) and unbiblical attitudes (where they’re found).
greenbaggins said,
March 29, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Well, Tim, I was certainly not trying to sound prideful. I have no doubt that the critics’ side has many things of which they (and I) need to repent, lack of charity probably being number 1. But we do not need to repent of our views. I would argue (and have argued) that the FV need to repent of their views, even though they have sometimes been more charitable than the critics have been. I see those kinds of things as different issues, however.
Todd said,
March 29, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Lane, why aren’t you actively encouraging the critics to repent of lack of charity? Or can we expect that side of things in a future post?
And you also mention your own need to repent. Why do you hesitate? I think there are many reading this who will be more than willing to forgive you.
greenbaggins said,
March 29, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I would actively encourage critics to repent of lack of charity. Did I not do so in mentioning it? I hereby repent of lack of charity. I don’t hesitate. That being said, what is charity? Calling on someone to repent of serious doctrinal error is hardly uncharitable, but rather charitable, don’t you think? Then the question comes back (again!) to whether the FV is error or not. I do not repent of the argumentation I have made attempting to show that the FV is doctrinally in error.
If a doctor were to tell a patient that the patient has cancer and needs to undergo treatment for it, and the patient calls out, “Why were you so uncharitable in telling me that I have cancer,” would we not say that such a person is off their rocker? Telling the person they have cancer is the most charitable thing the doctor can do. The question is this: was the doctor right? Of course, even if the doctor is wrong, one cannot necessarily impute (!) lack of charity to him. Doctors can be wrong. They are, after all, finite. But, on his best diagnosis, he tells the patient what he thinks the patient needs.
Todd, why are FV folk immune to repentance from wrong doctrine? Why aren’t you encouraging people to repent of their FV views?
Darth Andy said,
March 29, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Wes is correct, and the analogy to the current situation is even more apt than most realize. Baxter was one of the post-restoration English Presbyterians who espoused a neonomian view of Justification. Richard Traill was writing against exactly this view in his classic work “Justification Vindicated” a review of which is available online here:
http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?1098
Sadly, the English Presbyterians, by and large followed the neonomian theologians like Baxter all the while arguing for greater liberty and latitude in doctrinal matters and continued their decline throughout the 17th century, eventually ending up as full-blown Unitarians in the 18th.
I think we are seeing now that the FV is just a new instance of the same kind of theological declension that typically occurs amongst Calvinists, and frankly there aren’t too many new ways to decline. That’s why FV theology has so many similarities to the theology of the Remonstrants, Neonomians, and Mercersburg theologians. Nihil Novi Sub Sole.
Jon said,
March 29, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Todd,
Your attempt to redirect the debate and deflect it away from the error of FV advocates is shrewd. However the point at issue is the error being perpetuated daily by those in the FV. The fact that we all need to repent daily for any number of sins is a different issue. Stay on point.
greenbaggins said,
March 29, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Good to see you on the blog, Andy, and welcome. In case any were wondering, “Darth Andy” is Andrew Webb, of the Warfield List.
Todd said,
March 29, 2007 at 3:43 pm
No, Jon. Lane brought up other issues, and I, as is my custom, asked a couple of follow-up questions. I didn’t introduce any new material.
Jon said,
March 29, 2007 at 3:55 pm
If you say so Todd.
pdugi said,
March 29, 2007 at 3:57 pm
“the same kind of theological declension that typically occurs amongst Calvinists”
I wonder why its so common to occur in calvinists?
Their prediliction for systematizing?
Their commitment to reforming biblically, isntead of sticking with old forms?
Their recogniztion of the noetic effects of sin, even in confession writers?
What should calvinism purge itself of to avoid these kind of declines? What aspects of calvinism spin off in these directions?
pdugi said,
March 29, 2007 at 4:01 pm
“Doctor, I have this lump on my back”
“You clearly have cancer. Lemme get my axe and hack it out. This lump, here?”
“no, that’s my shoulderblade, it’s supposed to be there”
“No, it looks like it’s the cancer to me. If your arm falls off after I whack it, we’ll know I was wrong…”
Todd said,
March 29, 2007 at 4:09 pm
“Todd, why are FV folk immune to repentance from wrong doctrine?”
I don’t think I understand this question. Immune to repentance?
“Why aren’t you encouraging people to repent of their FV views?”
Simple. No blog!
greenbaggins said,
March 29, 2007 at 4:18 pm
What I mean is that no FV proponent has repented yet of the errors held. The ego gets in the way. It seems humanly impossible for any FV proponent to repent of their views.
Get a blog.
tim prussic said,
March 29, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Jon, I don’t think that broadening the view of a call to repentance is exactly changing the subject. The call to repentence WAS the subject. A call to all involved is a glorious idea. I, for one, fall into the FV camp on certain issues and disagree on others. I certainly want to protect the doctrine of justification through faith alone and I do see that some FVers are, at best, handling that doctrine very carelessly. I also see a lot of sinful attitudes on both sides.
These are things that need to be repented of and I heartily encourage the call to all quarters of this discussion.
We should always be ready to learn, especially from the brethren.
tim prussic said,
March 29, 2007 at 4:31 pm
GB, what do you think of Wilson’s consistent interaction with anti-FVs? What do you think of his MANY clarifications. You may retort that conversation is not repentance. True enough. However, a willingness to discuss, refine, and interact certainly shows a good bit of love for the unity of the church that the heretic-accusation-slinging folk do not exhibit. I’d be quite interested to know if Wilson has moved on any position since the beginning of the hubbub.
Regarding some of the other FV guys, I do think you’re correct, GB, repentance is not forthcoming and it needs to be.
greenbaggins said,
March 29, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Well, I have said before that I don’t think that DW has nearly as many problems as the rest of the FV. But two problems stand out: 1. He will not stand up and call on Steve Wilkins (whom I think is the most dangerously off of the lot) to repent, but keeps on defending him; and 2. his view of the visible/invisible church distinction is incorrect. I think his fundamental stance on justification is okay.
For a refutation of DW on the church, see Wes’s article here:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/01/05/the-church-its-definition-in-terms-of-visible-and-invisible-valid/
For a refutation of Wilkins’s theology, see here:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/01/03/federal-vision-index/
and see everything under the title of Wilkins’s exam.
greenbaggins said,
March 29, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Paul, for you to say that the FV distinctives belong to the body, and are not an aberration is simply off.
Rogers Meredith said,
March 29, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Might I ask: exactlly who (in the “FV” movment) needs to repent of what?
Darth Andy said,
March 29, 2007 at 6:57 pm
A few quick questions and observations:
1) At what point *are* we allowed to identify a viewpoint as heretical? When every Reformed denomination under the sun (rather than simply 3 or 4 or 5) has done so? When the people suspected of Heresy agree that they are in fact Heretics? Never?
When have we ever before seen the bar set at a point where having several Reformed denominations, several seminaries, several presbyteries, and most of the major Reformed theologians is still insufficient to declare something “out of accord with scripture and the confessions?” Is heresy now something we need unanimous consent on, or is it simply a word we are never going to be allowed to use again lest we run the risk of offending someone somewhere in the Reformed world? Should the participants at Dordt have repented of their over-hastiness?
Funny how we demand a much lower bar when it comes to being able to call Benny Hinn a heretic. I’ve yet to see a single denominational study committee report on him.
2) The general historical rule of thumb is that while they are in the minority, the people suspected of heretical opinions loudly proclaim that all they want is “toleration” and to be left alone to teach and believe what they want. However, once they come to power, they generally are quick to make sure conformity with their opinion is enforced. This happened, for instance, in the PCUS, the PCUSA, and the Scottish Church.
3) I’m searching hard for an example of where the Apostles treated people they considered to be heretics in a warm, cuddly, friendly and eager to fellowship kind of way and counseled others to do likewise, but I’m not finding them. Can anyone find me the “its a good idea to be as nice as possible to the wolves teaching perverse doctrines” section of the bible? Also, a scripture reference for the call to repent of calling heretics heretics would help out.
pduggie said,
March 29, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Darth:
1) You’re allowed to try to identify a viewpoint as heretical. You should make sure that what you say is actually the view of the person, not just some imagined trajectory or hidden motive they are alleged to have. Its also good if you use detailed exegesis and respond in detail, to exegesis offered.
2) is that the case with views on the length of creation days?
3) every issue the apostles dealt with was a gospel issue. None of Paul’s opponents went around saying “We agree with the same confession Paul does”.
The apostles did counsel everyone to respond with gentleness to those going astray. And we do see, however, Jesus counseling the apostles to cool it when they wanted to condemn people who confessed Christ but weren’t “with them” in the same organizational structure.
pduggie said,
March 29, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I was a bahsensian theonomist for about half a year. I changed. I didn’t “repent” to anyone, since I thought B. made a good case his views were reformed and biblical. And they were pretty close. I certainly wouldn’t try to get anyone who held to B’s view out of office, unless they made some HUGE deal about how it was the only way to think.
I’;m pretty sure shclissel uses intemperate language, but I’m willing to overlook it since his critics are worse. Its like lutherans arguing calvinists into views they shouldn’t have held (or vice versa: Joel showed me an example of that historically I don’t recall now: the pheonomenon is a critic makes some outrageous dogs breakfast of a mans views, and the man ends up adopting the travesty because the argument is so fierce… its happened)
“Paul, for you to say that the FV distinctives belong to the body, and are not an aberration is simply off.”
Did I say that in the “cancer post” or the one wondering why Calvinism has a tendency to go rotten? (Sam Logan taught me that one: Ramist logic pushed Calvinists into unitarianism)
My point in the cancer post is that its not uncharitable to tell a man he has cancer, but it is uncharitable to insist that a man has cancer, and administer a cure for cancer, when he has something else.
Lee said,
March 29, 2007 at 8:56 pm
pdugie,
How did Ramist logic push Calvinists into unitarianism?
Since Ramism was rejected by most Calvinisits (Ursinus and Beza to name a few), exactly what do mean?
Just wondering what you had against Ramist logic?
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 7:07 am
Lane writes: “I hereby repent of lack of charity. I don’t hesitate.”
Are you willing to be moe specific? Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man’s duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
March 30, 2007 at 8:15 am
Wilson admitted to Mike Horton on the White Horse Inn that he was aware that there were a number of different positions amongst the Federal Visionists themselves. He also said that his take on NT Wright was not necessarily the same as that of Rich Lusk, who has written high praise for Wright’s position on justification and the ‘pesty’ issue of imputation.Contra Wilson public statements, Lusk, like Shepherd, dismisses the WCF on the Covenant of Works and not only throws out the doctrine of active obedience, but speaks of not even needing any kind of imputation. Like Shepherd and Wright, a number of the FVers hold to a two-fold justification with the final justification being determined by works with an appeal to Romans 2:13. These representatives of the FV likewise define saving faith as ‘covenantal faithfulness’ and come up with a catagory they call ‘non-elect covenant member’ or ‘the believing non-elect’ who, according to Lusk and Wilkins are by virtue of their baptism, grafted into Christ ,and for a period of time temporarily possess all the redemptive blessings ( including the forgiveness of sins) the elect have -save for the grace of perservence. When these positons are given their due comeuppance by the FV critics , Wilson goes into a rage accusing us of distortion, misrepresentation, slander and the like. In Wilson’s eyes NONE of the criticisms of ANY of the representatives of the FV has any merit( pun intended).It does not matter who it is, or what kind of credentials they might have, be Guy Waters, the members of the OPC study report ( which include Dick Gaffin), Scott Clark, Mike Horton, Bob Godfrey and the entire faculty of Westminster Calif along with the faculties of Greenville Presbyterian, and Knox seminaries or Lig Duncan and the study committee of the PCA- in Wilson’ eyes we are all lack the ability to either understand or appreciate the insights of the FV. Futhermore, since we do not recognize the value of these innovations , and actually have the audacity to charge these men with error ,Wilson carries on a scathing personal vendetta against anyone who dares question ANYTHING related to the views of the FV.
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 8:35 am
“Like Shepherd and Wright, a number of the FVers hold to a two-fold justification with the final justification being determined by works with an appeal to Romans 2:13.”
I’m hoping you might be willing to answer a question here, Gary. How would you distinguish the view you’ve summarized here from Gaffin’s view? Or do you see them as the almost the same? Do you understand Romans 2 the way Gaffin does?
Here’s a more general question. In your view, Gary, how important is it for a theological opponent to believe he’s been represented accurately and honestly by a critic?
G.L.W.Johnson said,
March 30, 2007 at 8:47 am
Todd
I told you this earlier- go read the OPC study report-Gaffin helped draft it. Here is a question for you to ponder- are there ANY issues advanced under the banner of the FV that concern you, and are ALL of the critics of the FV off-base?
Ken Christian said,
March 30, 2007 at 8:48 am
(Hi Lane - Long time reader, first time poster. Thanks for the entertaining blog)
Mr Johnson - Are you trying to say that the category of “non-elect covenant member” is an invention of FV guys? Surely I’m misreading you. After all, WLC 166 seems to allow for this category when it says, “but infants descended from parents, either both or but one of them professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are, in that respect, within the covenant, and to be baptized.” Certainly the divines didn’t think that all children of believers are elect, yet they did say they’re in the covenant of grace. You’re not denying this are you?
That said, I might have misunderstood you altogether. Please clarify for me if you get time.
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 9:03 am
But my question was for you, Gary, not for Gaffin or the OPC committee. Seriously. Have you read the new Gaffin book?
As for you question to me–yes, I have plenty of concerns about certain FV formulations.
And how about my other question: In your view, how important is it for a theological opponent to believe he’s been represented accurately and honestly by a critic?
G.L.W.Johnson said,
March 30, 2007 at 9:07 am
Ken
If you will go over to Scott Clark’s Heidelblog and check the archives for a post I wrote entitled ‘ A Question for Federal Visionists Everywhere’ . The difference between what the WFC and the views of Lusk and Wilkins are significant. Lusk and Wilkins, despite their claims to the contary ,are advancing a form of Arminianism- what is ‘lost’ in their scheme constitues the very essence of salvation.Yet, this does not appear to trouble Wilson , a self-proclaimed ‘High-Calvinist’ in the very least.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
March 30, 2007 at 9:11 am
Todd
Well, I can’t say that I have read all of your comments on this blog- but please do direct me to any place where you have expressed ‘ concerns’ over the FV- as far as I can tell you appear to always be in their corner, so to speak.
Ken Christian said,
March 30, 2007 at 9:13 am
Mr. Johnson,
I’ll be happy to go read your post when I get a minute. But I’m still wondering about the question I asked earlier. To put it another way, do you believe there is no such thing as a “non-elect covenant member” in any sense?
Thanks so much - Ken
G.L.W.Johnson said,
March 30, 2007 at 9:29 am
Ken
No, there is not such a catagory as defined by the FV where such people are said to be ‘grafted into Christ’, which is how Lusk and Wilkins define the covenantal status of these non-elect covenant members. In the WFC ‘Union with Christ’ is reserved only for those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Contra Shepherd and his followers in the FV, justification cannot be ‘lost’ because it is linked with regeneration which in turn is absolutely critical for understanding the nature of Union with Christ. In the FV scheme of these men the only difference between this group labeled ‘non-elect covenant member( which they also call’ ‘the believing non-elect’ , which describes a class of people other than infants) and the geniune elect is the grace of perserverance- that is it. I find this more than just a bit off the mark, it is reprehensible.
Ken Christian said,
March 30, 2007 at 9:52 am
Mr. Johnson
I see what you’re getting at now. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.
If you’ll allow me to ask one more, could you please point me to a reference (link, page number, even book title) where Shepherd says that individual, elect-style justification (i.e. Westminster defined justification) can be lost? And if you know of any place where an FV guy says that, I’d appreciate it if you could show me where.
Thanks again, sir. -Ken
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:16 am
Ken, have you read through the index of Federal Vision posts on this blog, especially the Wilkins exam, and Wes’s paper on Norman Shepherd?
G.L.W.Johnson said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:22 am
Ken
I was a student at WTS during the Shepherd controversy. He openly admitted that this was his view, it first came to light at a meeting which came to be known later as ‘the Downingtown Conference. Those present were Ed Clowney, then the president of the seminary, Shepherd, Gaffin, Godfrey, Strimple, Kline all faculty members and librarian Leslie Sloat ( I had Gaffin, Godfrey, Strimple and Kline as professors). It was at this meeting that Shepherd let the cat out of the bag by saying that in his understanding of the nature of saving faith involving ‘covenantal faithfulness’ , it was entirely possible for a person to lose their justification. For all the particulars cf. A. Donald MacLeod, W. STANFORD REID:AN EVANGELICAL CALVINIST IN THE ACADEMY (McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press,2004)pp.257-279.
Ken Christian said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:28 am
Lane, I have read and listened to the Wilkins exam. I haven’t read your commentary. And I skimmed Wes’ paper (you mean the one just posted right?).
As I understood the answers Wilkins gave when he was examined, he was in no way saying that a Westminster-defined justification could ever be lost, once truely possesed by an indivdual. Now he did seem to allow for the losing of a another, more corporate type of justification. And, of course, many good men are going to disagree on wheter such a temporary, corporate justification even exists. But I think we all need to admit that, in Steve’s mind anyways, Westminister-defined justification and this “corporate justification” are not the same thing. His Presbytery, which remains in good standing, certainly saw that to be the case.
As for Wes’ paper on Shepherd, I don’t remember him showing us where Shepherd says that Westminster-defined justification can be lost. Could anyone refresh my memory?
-Ken
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:28 am
Gary, no you haven’t missed anything. I don’t believe I’ve shared any of my concerns about FV stuff here on Lane’s blog. I’ve been asking other kinds of questions.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:36 am
Oh, wait, I keep forgetting: Wes’s paper on Shepherd hasn’t been published on the net yet. It was published in the Mid-America Journal of Theology ‘2006. He has said that it will be available perhaps next week. I guarantee that I will be one of the first to know, and I will publish a link to it immediately as it becomes available. That being said, Wes’s argument about the Socinian/Remonstrant affinity of Shepherd’s views ought to be sufficient all by itself to prove the point.
On Wilkins, I would recommend the seriously detailed and logical debate that Xon and I had here and here:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/01/07/rejoinder-to-jonathan-barlow/
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/01/15/continuation-of-the-debate-with-xon/
These were the most fruitful debates I have ever had with an FV proponent. The upshot is that the parallel soteriology of the FV doesn’t square with the WS (imo), and ultimately contradicts the WS definition of justification and the other soteric benefits.
Todd, it’s jolly well about time for you to voice your concerns about the FV. I have been waiting for months. You can hardly say that such voicings of concerns would be irrelevant.
Ken Christian said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:39 am
Mr. Johnson,
Hmm…I’m confused. I’m a former student of John Frame and Rick Gamble, who I believe were also faculty at Westminster during the Shepherd fiasco. It seems reasonable to suppose that they were at this meeting too. Yet both of these men regularly defended Shepherd’s orthodoxy to me and my classmates. Could they have missed something so obvious?
Also, if Shepherd so obviously believed justification could be lost, then why would Gaffin publically endorse one of his books year later (The Call of Grace)? From my perspective, the evidence you’ve offered so far seems little more than hearsay. Am I missing something?
And to anyone who thinks Shepherd is a vile heretic, where are some quotes from Shepherd himself where he clearly affirms that Westminster-defined justification can be lost once it is possessed by an individual?
Thanks to everyone for their help.
Ken Christian said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:40 am
Thanks for those links, Lane.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:44 am
Ken, as I have said, the Socinian nature of Shepherd’s views makes justification dependent on works as at least a parallel instrument of justification. If it is in any way based on works, then there is no possibility of it being unlosable.
The larger (and far worse) problem in Shepherd’s theology is his making works to be part of justification. Again, see Wes’s paper in MJT ‘06 for confirmation of this. If you don’t have access to it, then email me your email, and I will send you a copy.
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:46 am
“Todd, it’s jolly well about time for you to voice your concerns about the FV.”
Nah. It’s definitely not time, jolly or not.
Ken Christian said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:46 am
Lane, I would appreciate an email copy. You can see my address right? Thanks.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:51 am
Ken
Please consult MacLeod’s book on Reid. There were a number of other faculty that were not invited to this particular meeting. By the way, like Gaffin, Gamble has also distanced himself fron Shepherd’s ever evolving position. It appears that the only one left still on Shepherd’s side is Frame, but even he has expressed reservations i.e. over Shepherd’s rejection of the CoW and the AO of Christ.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:52 am
Well, Todd, if it isn’t time now, then there will never be a time. I cannot believe that, regarding issues this important, you are holding back on what you think are problems in the FV.
Just sent it, Ken.
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:53 am
Gary, do you approve of Gaffin’s treatment of Romans 2 in his new book?
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:56 am
Sure, Todd, change the subject. Great tactic.
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:56 am
“I cannot believe that, regarding issues this important, you are holding back on what you think are problems in the FV.”
Believe it, man. One of the things I’m most eager to see is interaction with the FV guys’ *responses* to the OPC report. People love to quote Lusk’s “redundant” remark, but no one seems to interact with what has come since then. No one seems to know that he has withdrawn that statement.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:58 am
Todd
First , you tell us your heart-felt concerns about the FV
Ken Christian said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:58 am
Mr. Johnson, thanks for your help. Are you referencing Frame’s intro to the Backbone of the Bible (?) book? I read that too. You’re right about Frame’s disagreement with Shepherd on those points. Still, he was quite vehement towards anyone who would label Shepherd a heretic. Anyway. Interesting point about Gamble, I hadn’t heard that. Haven’t talked with him in over 4 years.
Can anyone point me in the direction of the most recent summary of Shepherds views, by Shepherd himself I mean?
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:59 am
Change the subject? Dude! It’s the second or third time I’ve asked him about this subject today. That’s not counting the last time it came up here. FV critics are acknowledging that Murray is a bad guy — why not Gaffin?
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:59 am
Yes, Todd. You are extremely fond of pecking away at someone else’s outstretched neck, but will never stick out your own (only to find out, of course, that if you did in this instance, you would hardly be criticized).
Ken Christian said,
March 30, 2007 at 11:00 am
Sorry about the bold.
Lane, I got your email. Thanks so much. One last request: could you send me the link to where you point out the Socinian nature of Shepherd’s views? That’s my last request. I promise!
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 11:00 am
“First , you tell us your heart-felt concerns about the FV.”
Ugh. I was afraid that it would get childish next. Too bad.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 11:01 am
Ken, the latest book _Call of Grace_ is the most thorough summary of his views of which I know. Shepherd is hardly a prolific author. There are a few papers and tapes available after the Call of Grace. But he hasn’t substantively changed his views on anything of which I am aware.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 11:02 am
Whatever, Todd.
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 11:04 am
Shephed wrote four papers in reponse to the OPC report.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 11:10 am
For our benefit, they are where, Todd?
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 11:14 am
http://www.federal-vision.com
“Just because they have a website, it doesn’t mean they’re a movement.”
Does anyone ever respond to these responses?
Tim Wilder said,
March 30, 2007 at 11:35 am
“Ken, as I have said, the Socinian nature of Shepherd’s views makes justification dependent on works as at least a parallel instrument of justification. If it is in any way based on works, then there is no possibility of it being unlosable.”
While Socianian and Remonstrant views have similarities, I think that the more exact affinity to Shepherd is the Remonstrants. The Socianians believed that God forgave based on sheer mercy. Arminianism is a convenant substition scheme. Under a covenant substitution scheme Christ buys us an easier covenant. So we no longer have to keep the terms of Covenant of Works, but only the terms of the New Covenant for which the condition (work) is faith. There are also faith+ schemes such as those of the British moralism that C. FitzSimons Allison writes about (The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter), where faith plus doable works are required. Where there is a faith or a faith+ scheme, these are the works that are the condition of the covenant of the Arminian type.
In this case a distinction has to be made between the sins that count because they are covenant breaking and the ones that don’t. We see movement in this direction from some FV people, as with Schlissel’s insistance that the law is “doable” (he can keep it, but only because some sins don’t count as breaking the covenant), and Jordan’s distinction between “high-handed” sins and the others. Then, because the covenant gets broken, you get your covenant renewal services, with rituals by the mediatorial priesthood of clergy. The people become dependent for their salvation on this sacramental cycle, and of course on the clergy who are the ones who can make it happen. This is where the juice is for the FVers.
Tim Wilder said,
March 30, 2007 at 11:41 am
Todd said:
“Does anyone ever respond to these responses?”
Do you want them too? This is where Shepherd told the OPC to dump the Westminster Confession because it is wrong. So much for all the ink spilled by people like Mark Horne trying to prove that Shepherd is confessional. Shepherd destroyed the FVs claim for a legitimate place in confessional Presbyterian churches.
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 12:05 pm
“This is where Shepherd told the OPC to dump the Westminster Confession because it is wrong.”
Not quite a direct quote, of course. Can you provide one?
I’ll ask again: how important is it for a theological opponent to believe he’s been represented accurately and honestly by a critic?
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I’ll provide a direct quotation for Tim’s assertion. From part 3, pg 4 of Shepherd’s response.
“My suggestion to the OPC would be to substitute the Heidelberg Catechism for the Westminster Confession.”
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 12:46 pm
That’s the one.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 12:49 pm
And Todd, since no FV proponent has *ever* been represented fairly by *any* critic, how much credibility do you think that FV proponents have in the eyes of the critics, when the critics are constantly being told that they are morons, idiots, slanderers (Shepherd says that one explicitly in his response, part 2, pg. 2) and just about every other name under the sun (see Bill Smith’s response as well). So, no, I don’t think that the critics have to wait around for the next 6 millennia for one FV proponent to say, “Oh, wait, you might possibly have a point there.” It’s *never* going to happen. But then, intellectual honesty has never been a hallmark of FV proponents, either, since they are doing everything they can to convince people that they are confessional, when they are not. Okay, call this a rant. Deal with it.
pdugi said,
March 30, 2007 at 12:50 pm
“speaks of not even needing any kind of imputation.”
You meant “speaks of everything imputation does by speaking of Union”
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Paul, we’ve been over this before. The RCC speaks of union with Christ. Union with Christ is therefore not a substitute, nor does it make imputation redundant. The RCC affirmed union with Christ, while denying imputation. Therefore, union with Christ is not a substitute for imputation. I’ll argue up one side and down the other than union with Christ *grounds* imputation, and prevents imputation from being a legal fiction. But I will deny up one side, down the other, shouting from the housetops that union with Christ in no way, shape, or form, makes imputation redundant. You really need to shed this poor theology, Paul.
tim prussic said,
March 30, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Wait, wait, wait…. Todd’s post (#61) says that an FV guy DID repent of something. I’d like to hear more about that. First, cuz I didn’t know it, and second, cuz this whole string is about how the FVers won’t repent. Todd, would you fill me in?
With regard to Shepherd’s _The Call of Grace_, I found it confusing. I certainly understood some of it (I also found myself in agreement with a good bit of it), but I couldn’t understand his railing against the notion of merit. He never seemed to explain it (same with Lusk), he just denounced “merit” numerous times. I thought it would’ve been more helpful if he had give reasons why he rejects “merit,” or even what he means by the word. This is something I’ve gone round and round with folks about and cannot seem to get traction.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Tim, that is because FV folk will not admit of any kind of merit, but will knee-jerk react and say, “Merit is a Roman Catholic invention, therefore it’s wrong.” Everyone talked about merit in the days of the Reformation. See this post for proof:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2006/07/07/merit-in-the-reformed-fathers/
But the RCC talked of the treasury of merits that the patriarchs and saints have built up, and by which we can obtain salvation (either by their merit, or our own). The Reformed folk talked of merit by pact. God bound Himself (graciously) to Adam that Adam would earn (merit by pact or agreement) eternal life. Christ, on the other hand, merits salvation for us absolutely (the so-called condign merit). But the FV folk will insert works into the CoG and grace into the CoW, such that there is only one covenant from Adam to now.
Rogers Meredith said,
March 30, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Dear Tim,
You don’t know me so let me introduce myself: I am Rogers Meredith, Pastor of Christ Reformed Church CREC (candidate). I have been “associated” with the CREC since 2002 and prior to that I attended seminary at Toronto Baptist Seminary where as part of my program studied New Testament under Dr. Don Garlington (PhD, Durham). Now I realize that those may be two strikes against me, but maybe not.
I do want to say that your above statement seems to be a very bad, if not inaccurate, “cartoon” of what some in the F.V. have said.
Now I am willing to admit I may be wrong or uninformed, but to suggest, as you do, that this distinction between “sins that count and don’t count” is a distinct feature of the FV seems wrong. As far as I know (and again I may be wrong), the distinction is between apostasy and perseverance.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Rogers, please distinguish between Tim Wilder and Tim Prussic. I assume you are referring to comment 73. It would be helpful to refer to comment number, rather than name, as most names who comment on this blog have more than one of that name.
Rogers Meredith said,
March 30, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Thanks, I will do that. I was thinking of Tim Wilder # 73.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I’m sure that Tim Wilder will provide quotation that supports his position. It seems to me that I did read this somewhere, but I cannot remember exactly where at the moment.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Welcome to my blog, Rogers, by the way. :-)
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Tim, I don’t think my #61 was about repentance. Instead, it was me declining Lane’s challenge to list the disagreements I have with certain FV formulations.
David McCrory said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Todd, I don’t understand your hesitation to post your disagreements. We might learn something from them. Do you have a vested interest in FV?
Tim Wilder said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:06 pm
“With regard to Shepherd’s _The Call of Grace_, I found it confusing. … I couldn’t understand his railing against the notion of merit. …”
First, _The Call of Grace_ IS confusing. It is written in an ambiguous manner. I asked a friend and protege of Shepherd’s what Shepherd was trying to do, and he just made a snaky motion with his hand. That sums it up. I would read a paragraph and think ‘Shepherd says A, that implies B, which is Arminian.’ Then I would read a gain and see that actually there was a possible, though less likely, meaning that was different, and so on all through the book.
But on the merit question, this is where the cheating really takes place.
A covenant is an agreement that two parties are pledged to taking the form of a promise by one party to do something on conditions that the other party is to meet. The terms of the covenant, what the second party must perform (works), are linked to the promise in the sense that the covenant stipulates that if the second party does the works the second party is entitled to receive the thing promised by the first party.
The definition of merit is a title in strict justice. A covenant is a legal instrument that defines when one party has a title in strict justice to something, namely just in case the terms of the covenant are kept (the works are performed). Therefore, merit is intrinsic to a covenant. Merit is the relation of the promise to the conditions. Where there is no merit there is no covenant. On the other hand, it is the covenant that causes the merit to exist.
In the case of Adam the covenant is a condescension that God makes to man to bring into existence a reciprocal judicial relationship–to bring into creation a legal order–that did not exist by the mere fact of the creator/creature relationship. This, by the way also also the proper starting place for a theology of culture, and not the so-called common grace of Kuyper and his followers.
So the question “Is faith a work?” has to be answered this way: Does the covenant say that it is? The FV people make a lot of effort to try to show that the real condition (the works) of the covenants is faith, from Adam on, so that faith becomes the pre-eminent work of works.
In the Federal Vision we have a claim to have a covenant theology without merit, which is impossible by definition. But then we see that covenant comes to be redefined by them as some sort of relationship, maybe like a family, maybe like the inner being of the Trinity, or something. Yet at the same time another definition of covenant, legal and forensic, is used when it suits the FV people. So joining the church is a formal process initiated by a ceremony, and justification ( borrowing from N.T. Wright) becomes the forensic pronouncement that someone is a member of that church covenant, etc.
So the reason that Shepherd or the FV don’t make sense is that their views an inconsistent mess. Because of this, neither view has the cohesion to endure, and is on the way to becoming something else some day soon.
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:06 pm
“But I will deny up one side, down the other, shouting from the housetops that union with Christ in no way, shape, or form, makes imputation redundant.”
No need to shout, Lane. Lusk has withdrawn the statement.
Rogers Meredith said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Thank you so much, it is very nice!
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:09 pm
David, nothing vested at all.
David McCrory said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Don’t both sides agree there are spiritual benefits in being baptized and joining the visbile church? And don’t both sides agree the non-elect members are never decretally elect and therefore lose their salvation? So doesn’t it, in part, come down to exactly what benefits the NECM receive?
David McCrory said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Then why not share in the discussion your concerns, Todd?
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Where did Lusk withdraw the statement?
Rogers Meredith said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Since the FV is not monolithic, by all accounts, perhaps the ideas Mr. Wilder is thinking of are distinct to certain individuals. I have read Meyer’s book on worship a couple of times and was not left with that (the above) impression of covenant renewal worship, at all. But perhaps that (book) is not what he has in mind. I would though like to be referred to (or to see here) the material in question.
Rogers Meredith said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:22 pm
I think I did read somewhere that Rich Lusk was at least aimable to the language of imputation.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Heaven forbid that the circling of the wagons could possibly be broken. The circle of life that is the FV would collapse and die if any one of the members betrays any of the others by mentioning the teeniest, tiniest angstrom-long disagreement. It’s a good thing that each man of the FV is his own man. I was beginning to think that the FV was monolithic or something. Oh wait, the FV doesn’t claim monolithic status, does it? I’m sorry, my bad, I thought that the oath of allegiance to FV theology forbade any betrayal whatsoever. That seems to be the case with DW, who still hasn’t answered my question about disagreements within the FV movement, and his disagreements with the other members of the FV. He probably never will. “You will be assimilated…”
David McCrory said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Quoted from above,
“In the FV scheme of these men the only difference between this group labeled ‘non-elect covenant member( which they also call’ ‘the believing non-elect’ , which describes a class of people other than infants) and the geniune elect is the grace of perserverance- that is it”
~ Do not the FV distinguish between saving faith and temporary faith? And do they (at least some of them) teach that the sign and seals of the sacraments are only efficaciously applied in the decretal elect?
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:28 pm
David, they do not distinguish adequately the different faiths, since forgiveness of sins accrues to the NECM. This was proved in the extensive argumentation linked in comment 51.
Tim Wilder said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Rogers Meredith said, #83 “the distinction is between apostasy and perseverance”.
It is the same thing. What is the difference between apostasy and perseverance? The difference is keeping or breaking the covenant. What is keeping the covenant? Faithfulness. What is faithfulness? It is not committing the FV version of mortal sin, i.e. high handed sin. The Reformed view is that we sin daily in word and deed. We don’t have those perfect, covenant-keeping interludes. Implicit in the FV, however, is lesser type of sinning, or sinning that doesn’t count (or in the Roman Catholic view, not sin at all if you are not aware of it), that is consistent with the faithfulness that counts as covenant keeping. So Schlissel says that the law is “doable”.
This high-handed vs. sublilminal sin distinction actually preceded the Federal Vision and was being taught by James Jordan years before, in the Tyler version of Christian Reconstruction. It is one of the conceptions that led into the creation of Federal Vision theology.
For further on this read: The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter by C. FitzSimons Allison, and his essay in By Faith Alone. Also, to read Peter Leithart’s review of Allison go here:
http://www.contra-mundum.org/cm/reviews/pl_moralism.pdf
I persuaded Leithart to review it in 1994. He was not to thrilled and did not see the point, but agreed to do the review anyway. You can make up your own mind whether he took in the lesson of the book.
Rogers Meredith said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:35 pm
But if Doug has said he is not in full agreement with other F.V.ers (who ever they are) then there is i(t seems) room for disagreement; correct? Or where you just funin me?
Rogers Meredith said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Tim,
Thanks!
Rogers Meredith said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Dear Mr. Wilder,
In numerous discussions with FV guys and with other pastors in the CREC, I was never left with the impression you suggest is implicit in the FV view of sin (though I may be an idiot). You do seem rather certain it is there though (explicit) and so might you move beyond mere rhetoric to (explicit) proof?
David McCrory said,
March 30, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Again quoted from above,
“In the FV scheme of these men the only difference between this group labeled ‘non-elect covenant member( which they also call’ ‘the believing non-elect’ , which describes a class of people other than infants) and the geniune elect is the grace of perserverance- that is it”
~ This seems like a generalization that would be challenged by FV proponents. Should this be construed as an attempt to accurately describe their views, or a intentionally over-simplistic and biased representation of FV theology?
Tim Wilder said,
March 30, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Re: Rogers Meredith 105. Read the Leithart review linked above (#102) in which he ends up trying to lobby for the distinction, even back in 1994.
The mixing of faith and works into faithfulness that we find in Shepherd is the other side of the coin from the minimizing of sin, for the sins just aren’t sinful enough to be unfaithfulness.
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 3:18 pm
“Where did Lusk withdraw the statement?”
You haven’t seen it? Bottom of page 20:
http://federal-vision.com/pdf/lusk1.pdf
“I freely admit that the sentence from my colloquium essay, “My in-Christ-ness makes imputation redundant,” is open to misunderstanding. Indeed, I gladly withdraw that statement, and let the rest of the argument stand on its own. But in context, Gaffin has no real reason that I can see for taking the expression in the way that he does. If I excise this one line, what argument does Gaffin have left against my formulation? The context makes it clear is “imputation or transfer” – or “imputation as transfer,” to be more precise — that I am critiquing. To state the point again (since it is apparently easy to miss): In my view, as articulated above, I am not justified by the “union itself.” I am not even sure what sense can be made of this notion of grounding justification in a relational bond. Neither do I ground justification in an inherent righteousness, worked in me by Christ’s Spirit. In all of my writings, even my discussions of future justification, I have emphatically grounded justification solely in Christ, the Crucified and Risen One.”
Lane writes: “That seems to be the case with DW, who still hasn’t answered my question about disagreements within the FV movement, and his disagreements with the other members of the FV. He probably never will.”
Already did. He answered a similar question a few weeks ago, Lane, giving a short list of disagreements with Lusk (I think) and Jordan. Not many details, though. It will hard to locate this, hidden down in the comments, but I’ll give it a try later. He mentions Jordan’s paper on regeneration in particular.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 3:24 pm
What does Lusk mean by critiqueing imputation as a transfer term? That’s what imputation *is*. Christ’s righteousness is reckoned as ours, is made ours. Not a legal fiction, because of union.
I would like to see DW critique Steve Wilkins, and show us where he disagrees with Wilkins. Lusk and Jordan are not in the PCA.
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I suspect it won’t satisfy you, Lane, but here’s Lusk’s answer:
First, I have nowhere suggested that union with Christ solves every problem or
swallows up every other doctrine. Indeed, when I concluded the section of the
essay of mine that the Report is quoting from, I cheerfully admitted that we may continue using imputation language if we desire, provided we understand imputation as a feature of union with Christ, rather than a piece of our salvation having a discrete structure of its own (page 143). So I am not opposed to imputation as a theological category as such. However, in any discussion of how we are justified before God, I do not think we can move away even one inch from union with Christ as the center. This is true even when we analyze the concept of imputation, which cannot be properly
defined in abstraction from union. Imputation is not a transfer of righteousness between two unrelated persons, but God’s declaration over us in Christ. “Imputation,” properly understood, is not a stand-alone step in the ordo salutis, but rather how God accounts and regards us in view of our union with Christ. When Paul says that God imputes righteousness to faith (Rom. 4:5), or that he does not impute sins to believers (Rom. 4:8), he is not talking about transferring anything from one person to another; rather, he is discussing how God considers and counts us in Christ. As the quotations I included in my essay demonstrated (page 143), my position was simply following and elaborating on the work of John Calvin and (the early?) Richard Gaffin (though I know my reliance on Gaffin now appears ironic, given his membership on the OPC Committee that produced the report – more on that below).
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 3:39 pm
He still is saying that imputation is a disposable doctrine. We can have it, or we can jettison it. If we have it, it needs to be rooted in union. And he still denies that imputation is a transfer term. So he is wrong.
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 3:44 pm
“And he still denies that imputation is a transfer term. So he is wrong.”
Very subtle reasoning there, Lane!
Hey, do you believe that impute means transfer in Romans 4:8?
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Paul means the transfer of guilt to the sinner due to the sinner because of God’s wrath against sin and against the sinner, which comes to the sinner because of God’s law. Transfer is there.
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 3:50 pm
That doesn’t sound like a transfer to me. That sounds like a reckoning. Doesn’t transfer imply “from one account to another”?
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Sin accrues debt (as Jesus tells us in the Lord’s Prayer). Guilt is transferred. Really, Todd, this is quite a reasonable explanation of how Romans 4:8 is a transfer term.
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Transfered from where?
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 3:58 pm
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transfer
Rogers Meredith said,
March 30, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Tim re: 105
Thank you again! I appreciate your helpfulness.
I reread the article you linked. Peter does note that the Bible makes this distinction. But isn’t it a “jump” to say that the FV guys connect the forgiveness of “non presumptuous” sins to covenant renewal style worship?
Perhaps that is not what you are saying. If it is what you are saying would you please show me where Peter or others makes the connection?
Andy Dollahite said,
March 30, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Lane,
Isn’t Lusk saying that he denies imputation as a transfer term in isolation from union, not that he denies imputation as a transfer term in all contexts?
“So I am not opposed to imputation as a theological category as such. However, in any discussion of how we are justified before God, I do not think we can move away even one inch from union with Christ as the center. This is true even when we analyze the concept of imputation, ***which cannot be properly defined in abstraction from union***. Imputation is not a transfer of righteousness between two unrelated persons, but God’s declaration over us in Christ.” (emphasis mine)
Rogers Meredith said,
March 30, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Re 109
So, G.B. what is the case? It seems that you are parsing your objections.
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Andy D, welcome to my blog. I don’t think that Lusk affirms imputation at all. He merely says, “Oh, I suppose maybe I don’t have a real problem if someone wants to hold to it.” I interpret him as denying that imputation is a transfer term at all. BOQ he is not talking about transferring anything from one person to another. EOQ How does this square with your thesis?
Todd, the potential for guilt is by the law, and is found in the law. The law says, “disobey, and guilt will accrue to you.” So guilt comes from the law (as potential guilt) to the sinner (as actual guilt). You’re really nitpicking here, Todd.
Andy Dollahite said,
March 30, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Lane,
Thanks for your welcome.
I understand you are asserting Lusk doesn’t affirm imputation at all. But when I read the passage quoted in #108, I see Lusk affirming imputation, only in a nuanced manner. As the very first statements in the quote say, “First, I have nowhere suggested that union with Christ solves every problem or swallows up every other doctrine. Indeed, when I concluded the section of the essay of mine that the Report is quoting from, I cheerfully admitted that we may continue using imputation language if we desire, provided we understand imputation as a feature of union with Christ…”
The nuance is that we cannot understand impuation apart from union with Christ. He seems to be concerned with those people who speak of imputation as a transfer between two unrelated people.
In summary, qualifying how you speak of imputation (what I see Lusk doing), and denying imputation (what I understand to be your view of Lusk’s view) are not the same thing. Am I missing something?
greenbaggins said,
March 30, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I think you’re missing this statement:
“he is not talking about transferring anything from one person to another.”
He does not view imputation as a transfer term, and therefore denies imputation.
Furthermore, he is rather cavalier about the idea of imputation, when he, in effect, says, “We may continue using it, if we want to. But we don’t have to continue using it if we don’t want to.” Imputation is a feature not of union with Christ but of justification, which, in turn, is grounded in union with Christ.
Rogers Meredith said,
March 30, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Dear G.B.
Earlier (post #29) you mention that one of the problems you have with Douglas Wilson is that he will not take Steve Wilkins to task. Yet in your review of Richard Gaffin’s latest book (which BTW I love and agree with wholeheartedly) you “defend” him for not taking Shepherd to task for his theological oddities. Now you point out that the reason for this, and for Gaffin’s quote on Shepherd’s book, is that they are friends, and friends, well friends don’t critic each other publicly(and besides that Richard is a nice guy). Now what if the same were true for Wilson and Wilkins (and I don’t know if it is or if it isn’t)? If you were to even allow for that as a possibility then shouldn’t you “ease” up on your objections; especially so since this seems to be your main one?
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 9:57 pm
“Todd, the potential for guilt is by the law, and is found in the law. The law says, “disobey, and guilt will accrue to you.” So guilt comes from the law (as potential guilt) to the sinner (as actual guilt). You’re really nitpicking here, Todd.”
Guilt is transferred from the law to the sinner, just as righteousness is transferred from Christ to the believing sinner?
Todd said,
March 30, 2007 at 10:06 pm
“I would like to see DW critique Steve Wilkins, and show us where he disagrees with Wilkins. Lusk and Jordan are not in the PCA.”
This is a strange thing to say, Lane. Wilson’s not in the PCA, either, as I’m sure you know.
I also appreciate Rogers’s question about Gaffin-Shepherd/Wilson-Lusk.
Mark Horne » links for 2007-03-31 said,
March 30, 2007 at 11:26 pm
[...] Ego, Repentance, and the Federal Vision « Green Baggins If a man is a fool to give up his soul in exchange for the whole world, what sort of idiot would he be who made the exchange merely to “gain the respect of the majority of the Reformed world,” The majority of of tiny self-destructive minority is supposed (tags: fv/npp-smear) [...]
Al said,
March 31, 2007 at 6:15 am
Lane,
I really find it hard to understand why you find it so hard to understand Lusk’s view and why you so often put the worst construction on his words. Lusk’s denial of imputation as transfer is related to his concern to maintain the reality of union with Christ. If we are united to Christ then what is his becomes ours, without obliterating personal distinction. He compares this to a wife and a husband. When two people marry, the wealth and status of the husband becomes the wealth and status of the wife. There is no ‘transfer’ of the wealth from one ‘account’ to another. Rather, by virtue of the the union in marriage the wealth is now a wealth that the wife holds in common with her husband.
It seems to me that Lusk’s approach maintains the key concerns that people on both sides of this debate have. The righteousness is reckoned to us, not infused. It is an ‘alien’ righteousness as it is the righteousness of another, and a righteousness that can never be abstracted from that other. We enjoy this righteousness, not as we seek to cultivate some grace that has been infused into us, but as we are united to Christ by simple faith. However, the righteousness is not ‘transferred’ but ’shared’.
As regards the larger point that you have been making in this post and the comments, I really don’t see why the FV proponents have to repent. I also don’t think that ego has much to do with it. The more that I read material critical of the FV, the more persuasive the FV position appears. For example, I have just finished reading Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry and most of the writers within it, despite their Reformed credentials, really don’t have much of a clue about the FV (or the NPP, for that matter). They put the worst constructions on the positions that they criticize and leave those who sympathize with FV and NPP positions (like me) quite frustrated. It is a strawman that is being criticized and the theological concerns that most people within the FV and NPP have are really not being addressed. The FV proponents that I know are thoroughly convinced that they are in the right in this debate. This is the reason why they don’t ‘repent’.
You speak of FV proponents ‘circling the wagons’ and never expressing any dissent. Well, for the record, I do not share Wilson’s understanding of a host of issues within this debate and find his rhetorical style incredibly irritating. I think that Shepherd is wrong to speak of ‘covenant conditions’ in the way that he does. I disagree with Jordan’s understanding of justification on a few key points. Lusk’s understanding of imputation is not my own. I think that Schlissel is plain wrong on the subject of the newness of the new covenant. I could extend this list considerably.
I know for a fact that many within the FV movement would share some of my opinions here. They are not unwilling to disagree with each other. The problem is that they know that they are not merely being asked to disagree with each other. They are being asked to pick up a stone — no matter how small — and cast it. They will be rehabilitated as they join the scapegoating process. Public expression of disagreement with each other is being sought, not to clarify the personal positions of those involved in the debates, but as a powerful symbolic gesture. I think that FV proponents are right and wise to refrain from doing so in the current climate.
Disagreements are expressed, but they are expressed in contexts where such disagreement can take place safely, without suggesting any complicity with the current scapegoating process.
david said,
March 31, 2007 at 7:45 am
He does not view imputation as a transfer term, and therefore denies imputation.
- Wrote Lane, just above.
Um, no, not at all. In fact (as has been pointed out repeatedly) he denies describing imputation of Christ’s righteousness in the same way that you might. But he affirms the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as a dimension of union with Christ.
Not that this would please the likes of Jeong Kim in his rabid denunciations of the ‘union with Christ school’. That Klinean even thinks Sinclair Ferguson has denied the Faith. So has Gaffin. Murray barely survives.
So speaking of repentance….
Tim Wilder said,
March 31, 2007 at 9:10 am
128 Al Said:
“I really find it hard to understand why you find it so hard to understand Lusk’s view and why you so often put the worst construction on his words. Lusk’s denial of imputation as transfer is related to his concern to maintain the reality of union with Christ. If we are united to Christ then what is his becomes ours, without obliterating personal distinction. He compares this to a wife and a husband. When two people marry, the wealth and status of the husband becomes the wealth and status of the wife. There is no ‘transfer’ of the wealth from one ‘account’ to another. Rather, by virtue of the the union in marriage the wealth is now a wealth that the wife holds in common with her husband.”
This is an important point. What is the nature of the union? Gaffin in his recent book can tell you what the union is not. He ends up saying it is the mystical union, where mystical is defined as we-don’t-know-what-it-is. “Union” itself is a very broad term extending from metaphysical identity at one end of it range of meaning to shared purposes of some sort at the other end. By making salvation depend on the we-don’t-know-what-it-is we have with Christ, he creates a black hole at the center of the doctrine of salvation from which no light of knowledge can emerge.
It looks like Lusk does the same thing. Salvation somehow happens in the black hole of unknown union. But if he wants to replace covenantal imputation with the theological black hole he is exchanging a theological idea for no explanation at all.
david said,
March 31, 2007 at 9:57 am
Is Gaffin saying in effect utterly unknown and inknowable or is he speaking in the sense of ‘mystery’ - known truly and confessed whole-heartedly without knowing exhaustively. Without advocating for either Lusk or Gaffin, it doesn’t appear to me that they are offering a black hole approach to new life in Christ. That seems to vastly overstate