Reply to Jeff Meyers, part 4
May 14, 2007 at 11:07 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)
Meyer’s point 9 is to the effect that equivocation in the statement regarding election leads the committee to misrepresent the FV position on election. He argues that the committee equivocates in its definition of election. He claims that the committee allows the “covenantal election” definition of the term in addition to the decretal sense, and then claims that the FV men are claiming that it is possible for someone to fall from decretal election. Since the committee did not clearly delineate which definition of election is in use throughout that sentence, therefore the criticism falls wide of the mark. Meyers claims that no FV man claims that a Christian can fall away from decretal election, but rather they can fall away from covenantal election. He claims that all FV men hold to decretal election.
My response is two-fold. First of all covenantal election as defined by FV men is not the same as corporate election of Israel. This is a common mistake in FV theology. FV theologians say that every person who is in covenant with God (whether decretally elect or not) is elect in this covenantal sense. But that is a statement about individuals. The additional definition of election as admitted by the committee is not the same as this at all. It says that Israel as a nation was elected from all other nations to be special. So, Meyers is again making the fallacy of composition. The committee’s “extra” definition of election is not the same as the FV’s “extra” definition of election. This is important, because Meyer’s entire claim of refutation is based on the identity of these two definitions. But for God to say that Israel was chosen out from all the other tribes of the earth is not the same thing as God saying (hypothetically, for He never actually says it) “I covenantally elect every individual member of Israel.”
Secondly, what the committee’s report is actually saying is this: the FV ascribes benefits to the “covenantally elect” that only belong to the decretally elect. If that is so, and the FV says that one can fall from covenantal election, then the charge of Arminianism stands, despite the FV’s claim that they hold to decretal election. The reason for that is that when one fudges the distinction between covenantal election and decretal election by saying that any benefits that accrue only to the decretally elect belong also to the covenantally elect, then there remains no way to delineate the ontological difference between the decretally elect and the non-decretally elect. Hence, the FV claims too much when it says that the covenantally elect can fall. What they say is that it is possible for someone to be justified, sanctified, adopted, forgiven, etc., and lose their covenantal salvation at the end. But these are benefits that only the decretally elect enjoy. I have quoted Federal Vision, p. 59 so often in this respect that I am sure the FV proponents are justified (!) in charging me with broken-recordness. It should be noted, of course, that some do not fudge this distinction nearly as badly as others.
Chris said,
May 14, 2007 at 11:13 am
Which of Meyers points do you think are very good concerns?
greenbaggins said,
May 14, 2007 at 11:19 am
I don’t think any of them are without answer.
Tim Wilder said,
May 14, 2007 at 11:56 am
Can one say that it is possible to fall away from “covenantal election” either. Doesn’t Romans 11:26 say “And in this way all Israel will be saved”?
Isn’t the elect entity, namely Israel, saved? And in, so called decretal election (as though God did not decree “covenantal” election) no elect entity is lost either.
But the FV wants to preach a perishable election, so they have to equivocate between the various elections and the nature of their memberships.
R. F. White said,
May 14, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Tim, your point about equivocation is almost exactly the one I argued in the 2003 colloquium when interacting with Doug Wilson about covenant and apostasy.
Tim Wilder said,
May 14, 2007 at 12:41 pm
When the FV people talk about election, and covenant membership, and assurance it always seems like the game of finding which of the shells has the pea under it. Someone is always palming the pea and putting under another shell. And where is the assurance in that?
Susanna said,
May 14, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Maybe my questions from “Reply to Jeff Meyers” would fit better here.
I need some clarification - are you saying that there are basically two kinds of election - covenantal and decretal? Would that be the same as what Wilkins calls non-elect believer and elect believer?
If “covenantal election” falls short of salvation, then why would we want to teach and preach it in the pulpit? Hebrews 4:1 says, “Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.”
Israel in the wilderness had covenantal election, but they fell short of entering that rest because of unbelief. They all died in the wilderness. Why would we want to stop with covenantal election and die in our sins like the Israelites?
I view covenantal election as the old that has passed away because the new has come (2 Cor. 5:17). And, Jesus warned us not to put new wine into old wineskins and not to sew a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. For, the wineskins would burst and the garment would have a worse tear (Mt. 9:16-17). How can we rest satisfied that we or our children only possess covenantal election (membership in a visible church) that falls far short of heaven?
Am I misunderstanding something?
Kevin said,
May 14, 2007 at 1:08 pm
That’s great, Tim: Perishable election. It doesn’t get more Arminian than a perishable election. To this equivocation in the FV lexicon I would add Wilkins’ idea of covenant apostasy: “temporary perseverance” (of the saints).
Tim Wilder said,
May 14, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Re: 6
“I view covenantal election as the old that has passed away because the new has come (2 Cor. 5:17).”
Israel is typological of the Church, and much that is promised to Isreal is typological, such as the promise of the land.
However there is a continuity. Not all Israel is Israel. Similarly, not all the church is the church. We make this distinction as that between the visible church, and those who genuinely in Christ, the invisible church. So not all the “visible church” is the church.
The problem with terms lilke “covenantal election” and “decretal election” is that they are not at all useful to make these distinctions. Israel was chosen by God and brought into a covenant. Yet not all are saved, for not all Israel is Isreal. But the same can be said of the church. Covenant children, the children in the church, are entitled to baptism as covenant members, yet some of them are not true covenant members in that they are not savingly united to Christ. So not all the church is the church. Yet, those who are baptized are in the visible administration of the covenant along with the others, so the difference is not whether or not something is covenantal.
A similar objection can be made to the term decretal. God decreed to elect Israel and God decreed to elect the church. The same is true of those individuals who have saving faith, e.g. Jacob and not Esau, or the wheat and tares today. So all election is covenantal, and all election is decretal. A distinction between covenantal and decretal election as such does not make sense. We have to get into details of what decree, and what covenant and in what sense of the administration of the covenant people are in or out.
Since the Federal Vision operates by obscuring and confusing covenants, elections, type with anti-type, one has to be constantly on the watch against wrong distinctions between made on these points, and even more so against inconsistently applied distinctions. At the same time the FV rejects the clearest and most useful terminology to keep these distinctions straight, namely the “visible church” and the “invisible church”.
Andrew Voelkel said,
May 14, 2007 at 1:37 pm
My understanding of FV thinking (and anti-FV thinking) on the topic is as follows:
FV Position:
“Salvation in Christ is found within the covenant community, God’s New Creation, The Re-generation, the Church.
So be of good cheer Covenant Members… you are in the right place!”
Anti-FV Response:
FV gives false assurance to the Church (FV position is presumptuous)
FV Position (continued):
But don’t be presumptuous Church! Being in the covenant community is not sufficient for eternal salvation; you must abide in Christ & persevere in the faith!
Anti-FV Response:
FV guys undermine assurance of salvation by calling the church to faithfulness as a requirement for salvation.
(maybe I am misunderstanding either the FV position or the Anti-FV position; but if I am correct on both, then we have entered the Twilight Zone)
pduggan said,
May 14, 2007 at 1:55 pm
“How can we rest satisfied that we or our children only possess covenantal election ”
We’re never supposed to “rest, satisfied” in any kind of election.
We’re supposed to “give all diligence to make his calling and election sure”
markhorne said,
May 14, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Re #10: Charles Hodge, Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians (Banner of Truth):
Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall (First Corinthians 10.12).
…There is perpetual danger of falling. No degree of progress we may have already made, no amount of privileges which we may have enjoyed, can justify the want of caution. Let him that thinketh he standeth, that is, let him who thinks himself secure. This may refer either to security of salvation, or against the power of temptation. The two are very different, and rest generally on different grounds. False security of salvation commonly rests on the ground of our belonging to a privileged body (the church), or to a privileged class (the elect). Both are equally fallacious. Neither the members of the church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness; and they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort. False security as to our power to resist temptation rests on an overweening self-confidence in our own strength. None are so liable to fall as they who, thinking themselves strong, heedlessly run into temptation (p. 181).
Tim Wilder said,
May 14, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Re: 11
And what good does the Hodge quote do you?
He says the text might refer to falling into sin, or it could refer to the presumption of those who are in the visible church but not in the invisible church. In the second case the presumption may be of one or two types, the first we could aptly call Federal Vision presumption, of looking to baptism, thinking that that the visible church as such is saved, etc, and the second type is of presuming to be elect. In either case there is a call to desist from false assurance, and seek a true assurance.
Tom Thistleton said,
May 14, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Tim,
You said, “Covenant children, the children in the church, are entitled to baptism as covenant members, yet some of them are not true covenant members in that they are not savingly united to Christ.”
So which is it? Are all children in the church covenant members or not? If not, why do we baptize them (since it appears from your wording that they are entitled to baptism because they are covenant members)? If so, what kind of covenant are they members of that they can fall away from?
Susanna said,
May 14, 2007 at 3:21 pm
What? We are never supposed to rest in any kind of election? Then, what good is election? What are we supposed to do? Not rest? Live in fear of always falling? Are you two (10 and 11) saying we can never have permanent security in our salvation in this earthly life? Jesus said to come unto Him to all who are weary and heavy laden and He WILL GIVE THEM REST (Mt. 11:28). What in your mind does the visible church have to offer in the way of peace and rest?
Mark, you are telling me that I have to persevere in holiness with continual watchfulness. But the Bible says I will always fall short of holiness (Romans 3:23). So, what do I do? How can I ever have enough watchfulness?
And, Jesus says to watch out for wolves in sheep’s clothing. How do I do that if I am not allowed to call a wolf a wolf, but have to call him a non-elect believer-I guess I can’t call him that either since I can never know his heart. But, if there is a wolf, and I can’t identify him for fear of being judgmental, am I in danger of not persevering and, therefore, losing my salvation? Am I between a rock and a hard place when it comes to persevering in holiness here (not being watchful or being judgmental)?
Jesus says I will never enter the kingdom unless my righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees. Well, Jesus is the only One whose righteousness exceeds the Pharisees. The good news, however, is that I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me (Galatians 2:20) Praise be to God! I have complete assurance and rest RIGHT NOW in God’s gracious election of this wandering sheep! That good news is not being communicated clearly by you folks. Rest, peace, assurance - these are all ours for the having in Christ.
Wouldn’t you agree?
I know I’m probably opening up another can of worms, but what exactly do you mean by persevering in holiness? Are we infused or imputed with holiness? Can I get a straight answer or am I looking for a “pea under a shell”?
By the way, what is “corporate election” in the church - not in the Old Testament as it refers to the nation of Israel - but in the New Testament church? Am I looking for another “pea under a shell”?
David McCrory said,
May 14, 2007 at 3:23 pm
A question that is not completely settled in my mind is, does the Covenant of Grace included non-elect members? It would seem so simply because many profess inclusion into the covenant by means of their obedience in baptism and outward (from man’s perspective) fidelity to God, and yet fall away.
Likewise we also acknowledge children of believers to be in the CoG by virture of God’s promise. And we know that some (if not many) fall away. In this instance, we believe the covenant does extend to non-elect members. So I think it best to say people can “truly” be in covenant with God, and yet not be “truly” regenerated and elect from before the foundation of the world.
Tim Wilder said,
May 14, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Re: 13
“Are all children in the church covenant members or not?”
They are members of the visible church and therefore under the administration of the external aspects of the covenant as it applies to the visible church, e.g. external signs and seals such as baptism. Not all Israel is Israel. What can be called Israel in one sense is not Israel in a stricter sense.
Tim Wilder said,
May 14, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Re: 15
“A question that is not completely settled in my mind is, does the Covenant of Grace included non-elect members?”
The way some people put is that there is an external administration of the Covenant of Grace, which applies to the visible church. Others prefer not to use “Covenant of Grace” in the broader sense. You have to define your terms and stick with your definition.
R. F. White said,
May 14, 2007 at 3:41 pm
David and Tom, as I understand it, the basis of both your points is that election and covenant are not coextensive; the elect and the covenant community are not coterminous groups. Covenant is broader than election.
greenbaggins said,
May 14, 2007 at 3:46 pm
That is how I read David and Tom’s comments, as well, Dr. White. If you look at footnote 26 of the PCA report, you will see this issue addressed. The issue is that there is an inward/outward distinction, whether one holds to the Witsius/a’Brakel view of the covenant, or the Gaffin/Robertson view of the covenant.
Susanna said,
May 14, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Susanna,
It appears you grant that corporate election existed in the OT. Your question about corporate election in the NT suggests you think God did something completely different with Israel than He’s done with the Church, but perhaps I’m misunderstanding your tone. For what it’s worth, consider the following:
1) Why does Paul say that the example of the corporately elected Israelites who displeased God by their unbelief was written for OUR example and instruction (1 Cor 10:1-13)? To me the answer is that God’s corporate election continues in the Church, (as does his individual election BTW). Therefore, we must learn to understand both aspects of election appropriately. (Personally, I think #9 summarizes this well.)
2) Much of Hebrews uses a similar line of argument as 1 Cor. 10. The writer in chapter three exhorts the church to avoid the same pitfalls as those who were disobedient in the wilderness. Ch. 6 again talks about those who have “shared in the Holy Spirit” who can no longer be restored again to repentance. (Heb 6:4). Heb. 10:29 speaks clearly about a person who has been “sanctified” by the blood of the covenant and who has outraged the Spirit of grace. If they are sanctified by the blood of the covenant, then in some way they must be participants of that covenant, even if they later go on to face a more severe punishment for spurning the Son of God.
3) John 15 - Jesus says that men will be pruned out of the vine. In some sense these men are taken out of something that were actually a part of, i.e. the corporately elected body of Christ.
Just food for thought. Blessings.
Andy Dollahite said,
May 14, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Oops, Susanna’s name got in that last post. (#20) That was my fault. Sorry.
greenbaggins said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Andy, the second paragraph of the post argues that the FV’s definition of “covenantal election” is not the same thing as God’s corporate election of Israel, since there is a fallacy of composition committed there by Meyers. Would you like to respond to that?
Xon said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:09 pm
But it is a necessary and natural consequence from election-of-nation to election-of-individuals-in-the-nation. When God elects a covenantal community to be called out as special, He also elects individuals to be in that covenantal community. These individuals are who FV refers to as the “covenantally elect.”
Then it is not a very good report. It ought not be up to zealous opponents of FV to “clarify” what the Report really meant on their blogs. The form of the argument of the committee, as they wrote it into their report, is that FV says the elect can lose their election, while WS say that the elect never lose their election, therefore FV is out of accord with the WS. That argument form, all day every day, is fallacious b/c it equivocates on “elect.” The fact that you have an interpretation that might save it from this fallacy does not excuse the report itself, because the report itself does not state the argument that you are trying to give.
Furthermore, your own effort to explain what the report is really saying ends up committing the same fallacy of equivocation. You just shift the equivocation from “election” to “justification”, “sanctification,” “adoption,” etc. To wit:
But when Wilkins says that NECMs are justified (though I don’t think he actually has every said this explicitly; but I’ll allow that it seems a natural inference from things that he has said), is he using “justified” with the same definition as the WS? You cannot simply assume that he is. Yet in your argument cited above you simply claim that FV attributes things to covenantal election which only truly belong to decretal election, and for evidence you simply list the attributes of justification, sanctification, etc. You make no effort to define these terms, and so you have just done the very same thing the Report does, but with different terms. It’s still equivocation though, I’m afraid.
greenbaggins said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Xon, the benefits that Wilkins talks about (justification, adoption, etc.) on p. 59 are never said to be anything other than what the WS define them to be. If there is equivocation, then it is in the writings of Wilkins, not the report, and not my blog.
David McCrory said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:21 pm
“Witsius/a’Brakel view of the covenant, or the Gaffin/Robertson view of the covenant.”
~ Lane, can you briefly describe the differences here.
” the basis of both your points is that election and covenant are not coextensive; the elect and the covenant community are not coterminous groups. Covenant is broader than election.”
This is an accepted view within the Reformed Faith is it not?
greenbaggins said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Witsius and a’Brakel say that the covenant of grace is made with the elect only. This would seem to be the view of the WS in WLC 31. Of course, the WS also say that the children of believers are also part of the covenant. This usually leads advocates of this position to say that there is an external administration of the covenant that includes children, but that the substance of the covenant is made with the elect only. In other words, there is a proper sense of CoG (with the elect only) and an improper sense (with the elect and with their children).
Gaffin and Robertson say that the covenant is not the same thing as election. That what is true of those in covenant is not necessarily true of those who are elect. They argue that the covenant is the historical manifestation of God’s agreement with His people, and that there is slippage between election and covenant.
I am still working on this one. But I am convinced that both views are different from the FV, which confuses covenant and election. Both of the above views have a difference between the elect and the non-elect. While claiming to support such a difference, the FV eliminates the difference by affirming this covenantal election in which all these benefits accrue to non-elect folk.
David McCrory said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Additionally, it seems fair to say that there is objectivity to the covenant. Those who show up in church on Sunday comprise a real number which can be counted i.e. it is objective. Yet those who are the elect from among those who attend on any given Sunday remains obscured from our eyes, at least or until we can observe their perseverance through saving (as opposed to a temporary) faith.
Craig Phelps said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:32 pm
“Witsius and a’Brakel say that the covenant of grace is made with the elect only.”
Yeah baby.
Do you have the references Lane?
David McCrory said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:33 pm
But Lane, do FV folks claim ALL the benefits accure to non-elect? How can perseverance accure to someone who doesn’t perservere? They seem more inline w/ Gaffin/Robertson.
greenbaggins said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Not right off, since those volumes are at home. Witsius is availabe online, however. In a’Brakel, it is in the chapter on the covenant of grace in the first volume. David, I would say that one can count the visible church. But what do you say to LC 31?
greenbaggins said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:35 pm
They will usually accept perseverance as the one exception. However, how can anyone say that a covenantally-but-not-decretally-elect person is justified? All those who are justified are glorified. You cannot have justification without perseverance.
David McCrory said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I’ll have to read LC 31 later, I don’t have it w/ me.
“They will usually accept perseverance as the one exception”
In my mind, it’s an all or none deal. Paul’s order of salvation seems to preclude a buffett style approach where you pick and chose your redemptive attributes a’la carte. I agree, there is no saving justification for a NECM.
greenbaggins said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:46 pm
LC 31:
Q. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.
greenbaggins said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I agree with you, David. So that means that no saving benefits can come to the NECM. Period. So, however one slices the covenantal pie, the NECM’s simply do nt participate in the same way as ECM’s. There is a sharp dividing line between them.
David McCrory said,
May 14, 2007 at 4:59 pm
The way I have viewed covenant living is through blessing and cursing. It would seem the NECM (whatever temporary blessing they might receive as part of the covenant body,) is really a curse ( a rejection of greater light) than someone who never participated in the things of God. Whereas, even the trials and difficulties (cursing) of the ECM are ultimately a blessing in that God works all things for the elect’s good and conversly, all things for the non-elect’s demise.
Xon said,
May 14, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I don’t understand, Lane. You are saying that, since Wilkins does not specify his meaning, that you may specify it for him? In other words, you have the right to assume that his meaning of these terms in that article is the same as the WS meaning of those terms, simply because he doesn’t say?
Equivocation occurs anytime someone makes an argument in which the only way for the reasoning to be valid is if a repeated term carries the same meaning, but it has not been demonstrated (or it is not justified to presume) that the term always carries the same meaning. To assume that the term has the same meaning in both instances is to equivocate, period. It does not matter what Wilkins said originally; perhaps he equivocated, too, but this does not mean that you are logically allowed to make an assumption of your own.
But, Wilkins didn’t equivocate anyway. In the article from the FV book, all Wilkins is doing on p. 59 is listing out and summing up a whole bunch of Scriptural statements about the covenantally elect (acc. to his understanding of those passages). He’s saying “Hey, look at all this stuff Scripture says about all covenantally elect people!” And he then lists out a bunch of stuff Scripture says. He does not attempt to exegete these passages, or to explain all the terms. That just isn’t the point of that article.
However, in later comments, such as in his answers to the LA Presbytery, Wilkins clearly does say that his position is that there is are two different kinds of justification. The justification received by the NECM is not the same–different in quality as well as in duration–as the justification received by the ECM. This is Wilkins’ explicit statement about his own position. In order to overturn such an explicit self-presentation, you have to come up with more than the article from the FV book (which, by your own admission, contains no explicit indication of his meaning at all).
I know you want to say that “Yes, Wilkins says he holds to two different kinds of justification which are different in quality, but he contradicts this elsewhere in his writings.” But, if he really does contradict it, then you should be able to show it. But you can’t show it from p. 59 of the FV book by itself.
So, where does Wilkins say something which logically entails that there is only one kind of justification, and that NECMs get it right along with ECMs? If you can find a place where he says this or something that entails this, then I will stand with you in pronouncing that he has contradicted his statement to the LA Presbytery.
Tim Wilder said,
May 14, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Re: 28
““Witsius and a’Brakel say that the covenant of grace is made with the elect only.”
Yeah baby.
Do you have the references Lane?”
My recollection is that this is also the view of G. H Kersten in Reformed dogmatics: A systematic treatment of Reformed doctrine
David McCrory said,
May 14, 2007 at 5:08 pm
What other kind of justification is there (biblically, or confessionally) other than that which accompanies regeneration? In whose eyes are men temporarily justified? Maybe a definition of this other type of justification would help clarify matters.
Vern Crisler said,
May 14, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Federal Vision is basically an “as if” view. By way of epistemology (”can’t know the decree”), FVists absorb decretal election into covenantal election. It is well intentioned, in that it wants to provide an objective basis for assurance. On the other hand, the major danger of “as if” ecclesiology is sacerdotalism. Personally, I don’t know why FVists don’t go to the Roman or Eastern sects, since “objectivity” seems to require it (if held to consistently). If one adopts FV, how does one get outside of the ecclesiastical box?
Vern Crisler
Xon said,
May 14, 2007 at 5:25 pm
How did God look at King Saul before he apostacized? He was reprobate all along; his sin and loss of the kingdom was predestined. Yet God “accepted” Saul as king over Israel for a time, then later rejected him.
That’s an analogy, of course, but the point is that we should be able to think of God dealing with people in time in an “interactive” way even though we also know that the whole story is already written by God’s decree.
I would say that, just as a human judge can take a juvi delinquent who was caught red-handed doing something awful and refuse to punish him, and can even instead give him great blessings (like putting him in some mansion home for troubled for boys, or something), so God can give a change in “status” to a person who will ultimately go to Hell. This change in status is not “I declare that Bob is forgiven for every sin he will ever commit, and is an irresistible member of My kingdom.” But it is a real declaration by God that Bob has a different status (i.e. it’s forensic) now than he had when he as simply a rank pagan. If the juvi delinquent lives in the mansion for a few months and has a grand time, but then breaks out and commits another crime, and again he gets caught and is brought before the judge and this time the judge throws the book at him, this does not mean that he did not genuinely enjoy a “change in status” (he was a boy who qualified to live in the mansion) for a while. If people can do this sort of temporary status change for each other, then God can certainly do it. God can do anything we can do (except sin, of course).
For the Biblical case that “justification” does not always have to refer to a declaration made only for people predestined to go to Heaven, I’d start with Leithart’s article in the FV book. But there’s always more that could be said, of course.
Xon said,
May 14, 2007 at 5:26 pm
And #40 was a response to David’s #38, obviously.
Susanna said,
May 14, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Well, guys, with the exception of Lane, your explanations are as clear as mud. Praise God for the simple truth of God’s Word and His precious Holy Spirit. No wonder the Bible says: For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe (1 Cor 1:21).
Do elect individuals personally have any assurance of salvation in this life? And, don’t give me the “it depends on what you mean by elect” line. We are turning into a bunch of Bill Clintons! Yes or No?
Todd R. Harris said,
May 14, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Xon, could you respond to Lane’s “fallacy of composition” claim? Thanks.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 14, 2007 at 5:35 pm
The simple truth of God’s Word: “For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”
Tim Wilder said,
May 14, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Re: 42
“Do elect individuals personally have any assurance of salvation in this life?”
Here is a little article on it by Horatius Bonar:
http://www.contra-mundum.org/essays/bonar/hb_assurance.pdf
“This was the view taken of the subject by our fathers, from the Reformation
downwards. They held that a man ought to know that he is justified; and that it was Popery to teach uncertainty, or to set aside the full assurance of faith, or to hold that this sureness was not to be had from the beginning of a man’s conversion, but only to be gathered up in process of years, by summing up his good feelings and good deeds, and concluding from his own excellences that he must be one of the elect, a man in favor with God.”
“our forefathers not only maintained that a man is justified by
faith, but that he ought to know that he is justified, and that this knowledge of justification is the great root of a holy life.”
thomasgoodwin said,
May 14, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Tim, the issue is actually more complex than you make it. There was a shift in the seventeenth century from the sixteenth in terms of assurance. The Puritans came to understand it in the way you describe, but the Reformers were not all agreed. Carl Trueman brings this out in his works and Michael Horton’s Oxford thesis on Goodwin also shows this evolution. At the same time, Trueman and Horton are in no way positing a Calvin versus the Calvinists thesis. It’s just a fact that the Reformers were dealing with slightly different issues than the Puritans.
Susanna said,
May 14, 2007 at 6:09 pm
You did not answer directly - why is that so impossible for you to do?
We have been trying VERY HARD for years not to presume anything about the FV views. But you NEVER give us direct clear statements and stick to them. This slippery sloppy gobbly gook theology leads us to believe you have no idea what you are talking about. And if you can’t communicate clearly, you should not be teaching or preaching in the pulpit. You are “corporately” confusing and poisoning whole congregations!
As, for me, I have to conclude that the message of the cross is a stumbling block and foolishness to those of you who hold these FV views. PLEASE TRY TO CLEARLY CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE.
How do I continue in his kindness? How do I persevere? Jesus says that apart from Him I can do nothing. I CANNOT continue in his kindness apart from Him. I CANNOT persevere apart from Him. So, HOW do I stay on the vine if I have no ability to do so??
Isaiah says that even my righteousness is as filthy rags. Even my attempt to continue in his kindness is as filthy rags - a stench in God’s nostrils! Even my perseverence is as filthy rags - garbage.
O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? The FV offers no answer to Paul’s desperate cry for deliverance.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 14, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Susanna, I suppose you’re addressing me and responding to 44, which was a response to your 42. But there are some difficulties.
First, I am not FV. Second, I know that you don’t mean to call Romans 11 slippery sloppy gobbly gook, but you should probably be more careful to make that clear. And third, your third paragraph seems to be asking questions that are generated by the biblical texts themselves, rather than by any certain interpretation of them.
For instance, you ask, “How do I continue in his kindness?” Well, what do *you* believe Paul’s answer is in the context of Romans 11? I agree with your statement, of course: “I CANNOT continue in his kindness apart from Him.” But Paul still says what he says. “God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.” Was Paul speaking in a confusing way? Was he confusing and poisoning the Roman congregation?
“HOW do I stay on the vine if I have no ability to do so??” Are you thinking of an answer, or are you asking rhetorically? Jesus gives this as a command, right? And then as a condition, right? Surely Jesus wasn’t speaking in a confusing way.
If you were studying John 15 with a new Christian and she asked you, “How do I stay on the vine?”, how would you respond?
Andy Dollahite said,
May 14, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Susanna,
Let me see how this works. You ask a question about corporate election in the NT (#14). I attempt to correspond in as kind a manner as is possible on the internet (#20) by suggesting a few biblical passages to consider. You tell me what I and others have written is clear as mud, and that in your eyes FV folks are all blind hell-bound pagans (#47). To be honest, I’m not quite sure how to respond, or if it’s even worth trying.
Now, I really am interested in your thoughts on the passages I mentioned - 1 Cor. 10, Heb. 3, 6, and 10, and John 15. How do you understand those passages? What is the point Paul, John, and the writer to Hebrews are driving at? If you can read those without a healthy dose of reverent fear I’d be surprised. If I was to boil the question down to something simple it would be this: Is apostasy a reality in the church or not?
Andy Dollahite said,
May 14, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Lane,
Regarding #22. I would agree with Xon in #23.
I believe in both eggs and omelettes. But Maybe I’m not tracking your argument. Perhaps you could rephrase it for me?
Susanna said,
May 14, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I guess I am throwing many of you into confusion with so many different questions. I apologize, for I certainly do not wish to add any more confusion to this issue.
I want to pose one simple question which I believe is at the heart of this controversy: I want to go to heaven, not to hell. I want to spend eternity with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Some of you are telling me that I must continue in God’s kindness; I must persevere. If I don’t, I will be cut off- I will lose my salvation and spend eternity in hell.
My question is this:
HOW DO I PERSEVERE?
Susanna said,
May 14, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Todd,
How is answering my question with a question an answer?
David McCrory said,
May 14, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Susanna,
By faith.
Susanna said,
May 14, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Thank you, David. Those are two simple but powerful and encouraging words.
Let’s try another question:
Can a believer truly know with complete assurance and confidence that he has entered into God’s rest in this life and in the life to come?
greenbaggins said,
May 14, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Susanna, you’ve hit the nail on the head: assurance is really what this entire question is about. If assurance is based on baptism, but people apostatize from their baptism, then baptism cannot provide all the assurance that people need. Of course, baptism is *a* means of grace. But it is not *the* means of assurance.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 14, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Absolutely. And faith still trembles at the threatenings.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 14, 2007 at 8:27 pm
“But it is not *the* means of assurance.”
And no one in this debate claims that it is.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 14, 2007 at 8:32 pm
We should also let Jesus himself answer Susanna’s “how” questions:
Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
Andy Dollahite said,
May 14, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Lane and Susanna,
Assurance is a part of the discussion. And I think there have been a number of good, biblical reasons for assurance given by all parties present.
With that granted and accepted, I want to know if apostasy is real in the new covenant or not? Why does a lot of ink get spent by NT writers making us think it is something real and tangible? If it is, then, what are these people apostates of?
markhorne said,
May 14, 2007 at 8:51 pm
“Jesus says I will never enter the kingdom unless my righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees. Well, Jesus is the only One whose righteousness exceeds the Pharisees.”
You need to read what the Bible says about the Pharisees. Lots of people possess a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees. I’m not saying that’s the ground of our standing before God. But, frankly, it is not hard to be more righteous than the Pharisees.
Jesus wasn’t saying how hard it was, when he said you had to exceed them, he was telling people to stop following them and stop admiring them.
Don Jones said,
May 14, 2007 at 9:08 pm
It is easy to dismiss the FV arguments by claiming that they are Arminian. That conveniently demonizes them and relieves us from having to interact with their biblical arguments. However, we cannot so label them for two reasons.
First, in every instance (that I know of) where a Session or Presbytery has examined the men in person for conformance to the standards they have judged them to be in accord with the standards. In addition, none were forced to take exceptions to a doctrine vital to our standards as a result of these examinations. If we are going to proclaim them to be Arminians, then we need to show either how an Arminian can subscribe to our standards or that entire Sessions and Presbyteries are off their rocker. Be my guest trying to prove either of those, especially the later, given the stature of Rob Rayburn, the moderator of the PNW Presbytery (one of the Presbyteries in question). I would sooner volunteer to hunt Bin Laden solo in Pakistan.
Second, to my knowledge all of these men have publicly, clearly, and unambiguously confessed their commitment to salvation by grace alone and election as a sovereign choice of God in the classic Reformed tradition. They all affirm that nothing we do — not baptism, not faith, not works,… — earns us salvation. They also hold that the (decretal) elect are chosen by sovereign choice of God, that none of the (decretal) elect will perish nor can any of the reprobate be added to the (decretal) elect. How such a confession can be called Arminian is beyond me.
If the Sessions and Presbyteries that examined them in person judged them to be in accord with the standards, then we need to work harder to understand what they are saying. It is very easy to misconstrue someone’s writings — because we cannot ask clarification. We can only do that via interaction with the person (as Green Baggins was doing with Doug Wilson before this fracas arose). I am reminded of a favorite Puritan quote (Jeremiah Burroughs, Irenicum):
“It is likely enough that these leaves may meet with some boisterous reader who may beat them one against another, who may pry and pick to find that in them which is not. Looking through the contradictions of his own spirit he may think he sees the like here. Let the lines be ever so straight, yet he will wrest and pull them however he can to make them lie cross.”
David McCrory said,
May 14, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Susanna you ask,
“Can a believer truly know with complete assurance and confidence that he has entered into God’s rest in this life and in the life to come?”
The short answer is yes. Our assurance, like our faith, comes from God. The Holy Spirit (the Comforter) can and does grant believers blessed assurance. Yet, the degree of our assurance ebbs and flows throughout our life as we continue this struggle in the flesh.
As a general rule, I have found those that are truly concerned for the state of their soul before the Lord need a lot less ministring too compared to those who never feel the need to examine their spiritual state from time to time.
And still God has not left us to wander. We have His Word, and the promises contained therein that Christ loses none of those who are His. We have our brothers and sisters in Christ who are there to bear our burdens with us, being used as God’s instruments of grace and peace to the troubled soul. Our God is good. He has taken every precaution, and knows your every need. He will not tempt you or test you beyond that which you can endure.
Susanna said,
May 14, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Andy,
Could you summarize in one simple statement the good biblical reasons for assurance given by all parties present? I really was refreshed by David’s two-word answer. I would be beholding to you if you could give me a short direct summary statement. Better yet, is it possible to answer my second question with a simple yes or no?
Apostasy is real in the New Testament. Hebrews 4:11 says that we are to be diligent to enter that rest (defined in a previous verse as ceasing from his works as God did from His), lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience (which was unbelief). Have we ceased from our works of perseverence in order to enter God’s rest? It would seem to me that apostasy comes not from lack of perseverance, but rather from trying to enter that rest by our own works of perseverance instead of by faith. Am I making any sense?
Mark,
The Pharisees were the law keepers as well as the tradition keepers. You are right - they were covenant breakers. Why? Because they were trying to enter God’s rest by keeping the law - by their own works of righteousness. I believe what Jesus is saying here is that even if the Pharisees kept all their laws and traditions to the nth degree, we would still have to exceed them in order to enter heaven. We can only do that by having Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. That’s the glorious gospel!
Susanna said,
May 14, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Amen, David. Thank you so much again for your encouragement in the Lord.
You know, I can honestly say that I have never questioned or doubted my assurance - that is truly a gift of God’s grace. I have failed to trust Him in many times and places, but I have always had that rock solid assurance. That’s what gets me up in the morning, knowing I belong to Him and that He will never leave me or forsake me.
Right before my dad died, he shared with me some simple words - all you have to do is receive Jesus as your Savior by faith. And all the rest of your life is lived in gratitude to Him. Is my dad saved and in heaven? You betcha!
R. F. White said,
May 14, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Andy,
You ask, Is apostasy real or not? Here’s my take. Scripture bids the house of God now under Jesus (Hebrews 3:1-6) to consider what happened to apostates under Moses. Their experience of blessing under Moses notwithstanding, most (of whom it is written that “they believed”) failed to persevere in faith. Similarly, now under Jesus, their experience of blessing notwithstanding, some have failed to persevere in faith (1 Timothy 1:19-20; 1 John 2:19), and others will fail (1 Timothy 4:1). In other words, apostasy did occur under Moses, and it does and will occur under Jesus. My point is, during the history of the house of God under Moses and under Jesus, apostasy has not merely been a hypothetical possibility; it has been a historical reality, and its repetition ought to be avoided.
Yet I hasten to add this next point: It is one thing to insist, as Wilson (“Reformed” is Not Enough, 131ff.) rightly does, that the warnings presume the reality of apostasy. It is another to ask whether the elect, who hear the warnings with the reprobate, are presumed to be in danger of apostasy. I would go at it like this. As it was with the warnings of wrath for unbelief before conversion, so it is with the warnings of wrath for apostasy after conversion: the warnings are not mere rhetorical manipulations; they are among the very means God has appointed for averting apostasy and His wrath against it. (Cf. P. E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 212, for a similar evaluation.) The dangers of apostasy and of God’s wrath against it are real, and the elect will not avoid either of them unless they use the means appointed for their avoidance. The warnings of God’s Word, as a means of grace, retain their integrity because the decree of election is realized through them, not apart from them. In the face of apostasy, God does not call on His elect to presume their election; He calls on them to make their calling and election sure. To put it differently, when the warnings against apostasy and wrath come, we are not to presume our election and to ignore them; rather we are to prove our election by trembling at the threats of God’s Word and embracing its promises. In sum, as I see it, apostasy and the warnings against it are real.
You also ask, From what are these folks apostates? As I see it, they apostatize from blessings derived from the ministry of the Word and the Spirit in the covenant community, the Word being the covenant of grace in (its now documentary) form and content, and the Spirit being the divine witness of the covenant through signs, wonders, miraculous deeds, and gifts. Yes, there are real losses by apostates. Scripture indicates that apostates were blessed to see, hear, know, even believe (Luke 8:13) the ministry of the Word and the Spirit in the covenant community. We should not say, then, in my view, that apostasy does not involve real losses of real covenant blessings. Nevertheless, we do not agree with some (not all) of the FV group when they speak of the undifferentiated blessedness of all in the new covenant community. Of apostates we must say with Scripture that, seeing, they did not see and, hearing, they did not hear. They were branches “in” Jesus (John 15:2), but they were also “apart from” Him (15:5) and did not abide in Him (15:6). They were natural branches on the olive tree, but they were broken off for unbelief (Rom 11:20-22). They knew, but their knowledge was according to the flesh (cf. [sophoi kata sarka], 1 Cor 1:26), not the Spirit (1 Cor 2:6-16; Matt 13:11). As Jesus says, they “believed,” but their faith, as Jesus also says, was only “for a while” (Luke 8:13). They were like the exodus generation, of whom it is said that “they believed in the Lord and in His servant Moses” (Exod 14:31). To them God’s promise of rest in earthly Canaan was preached. Nevertheless, the faith of “most of them” (1 Cor 10:5) failed when temptation and trial came in the wilderness. The promise of rest, though it had been preached to them, did not profit them (Heb 4:2). Their faith proved to be temporary. Despite the faith they confessed in the beginning at the exodus, and despite the blessings they had in common with all who belonged to that community, they proved in the end to have an evil, unbelieving heart when they fell away from the living God in the wilderness.
From Scriptural assertions such as these, we can, do, and must speak of differentiated blessings in the new covenant community. It is true that apostates suffer real losses, but the losses they suffer do not include blessings they never actually had, namely, saving graces that flow from the decree of election. After defection, there is certainly no longer any continuing justifiable claim to covenant blessings, common or special. All that apostates can claim is they once had blessings in common with the elect when they were part of the covenant community. As the apostle John might say, it is one thing to say that apostates were “with us”; it is quite another to say that they were “of us” while they were “with us” (cf. 1 John 2:19).
Don Jones said,
May 14, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Incidentally, in case it was not obvious in #61, I put more weight and credence on a Session or Presbytery that actually calls the man they are reviewing before them than one who judges him solely on what he has written. I find it very telling that the Sessions and Presbyteries that interacted with these men to determine whether they are in accord with the standards uniformly vouch that they are.
Don Jones said,
May 14, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Re #63. I often wonder whether the FV view of the corporate covenant does not make more sense of the passages in Heb (and similar) that warn of apostasy. I have never been quite satisfied with the explanations I have seen of those passages, especially the one in Heb 10. While I hold that the elect will persevere, because it is God who saves us and He will complete what He has begun in us, the FV position that covenant breakers, eg, those who are born, baptized, and raised in the church and then abandoned it (to be more clear, those who are not decretal elect, but still within the church), appears to make sense in light of these warnings. Truly, our children who abandon the faith will suffer much greater condemnation than those who never heard.
Re #65, I think Doug would deny that the decretal elect can commit apostasy. They may fall away for a time, as the WCF even says, but will ultimately be saved because they are saved by God’s grace alone. He would, on the other hand, say that the non-decretal elect who are members of the corporate covenant can commit apostasy.
The discussion on this issue has been very enjoyable to read. I pray that future issues will likewise result in such a good interchange.
Andy Dollahite said,
May 15, 2007 at 12:25 am
Susanna,
You ask, “Could you summarize in one simple statement the good biblical reasons for assurance given by all parties present?”
My Answer: My assurance is the perfect work of Jesus, which is mine only by living faith. Jesus’ faithfulness is my assurance. I’m not sure what would have ever given you an impression that I believed otherwise. Furthermore, this is exactly what the author of Hebrews argues in chapter 10:19-23, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.”
You want simple answers, and I have no problem responding at times with simple declarations that reflect biblical language. But I’ve also been trying to point out that Hebrews and the rest of the Bible discuss more than simple assurance of salvation, because immediately following this passage he discusses a very perplexing problem…but we’ve been here already. I’m just again asserting that v.26-29 are just as biblical as v.19-23.
You also ask, “Can a believer truly know with complete assurance and confidence that he has entered into God’s rest in this life and in the life to come?”
My answer: Hebrews 3:6,14 - “And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope….For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.”
Regarding apostasy, you said, “Apostasy is real in the New Testament.” I’m glad to hear that you aren’t one to say apostasy is only hypothetical. Now, at this point I’m not really interested in your explanation of the cause of apostasy, so much as I am interested in what you think this apostasy is from. In what way are they apostates?
Andy Dollahite said,
May 15, 2007 at 12:56 am
Mr. White,
I agree with #67 with respect to Doug Wilson not believing, nor ever writing to my knowledge, that the decretally elect can be true apostates. He has always affirmed that the decretally elect will most certainly persevere.
For what it’s worth, I give a hearty amen to everything else you said in your second paragraph. As I said previously, reading the book of Hebrews should put a reverent fear into any believer. God does use His word to sanctify His people.
Now, your third paragraph is puzzling to me. You say, “As I see it, they apostatize from blessings derived from the ministry of the Word and the Spirit in the covenant community, the Word being the covenant of grace in (its now documentary) form and content, and the Spirit being the divine witness of the covenant through signs, wonders, miraculous deeds, and gifts.” My question would be, by what right did these apostates have access to the blessings from which they apostatize? Clearly the blessings described in Hebrews go beyond descriptions of common grace. In your view, were these apostates real members in covenant with God?
Then you say, “Nevertheless, we do not agree with some (not all) of the FV group when they speak of the undifferentiated blessedness of all in the new covenant community.” I keep reading this description all over the place of the FV, and I wonder where this is coming from. I have never read an advocate of the FV (I only read Wilson, Leithart, and Horne regularly) speak about undifferentiatied blessedness. I’ve read them say more than a few times that they believe in ***qualitative*** differences between the blessings received by covenant members. I just have to roll my eyes every time someone says, “FV teaches the only difference between a NECM and an ECM is the blessing of perserverance.” That is not what the FV teaches from what I understand, but that hasn’t stopped the distribution of misinformation.
Near the end you say, “It is true that apostates suffer real losses, but the losses they suffer do not include blessings they never actually had, namely, saving graces that flow from the decree of election.” So what exactly are they losing? I agree that the number of apostates includes no decretally elect. But apostates are a group of people who experienced covenant with God in some way that the real blessings they had translate into real loses. The blessings they are said to have in Hebrews sound pretty impressive to me. What do you think?
Bret L. McAtee said,
May 15, 2007 at 12:58 am
#11
Hodge page 182 Same commentary
“But God is Faithful”
‘He has promised to preserve His people and therefore his fidelity is concerned in not allowing them to be unduly tempted. Here, as in 1, 9, and every where else in Scripture, the security of beleivers is referred neither to the stregnth of the principles of grace infused into them by regeneration, nor to their own firmness, but to the fidelity of God. He has promised that those given to the Son as His inheritance should never perish. They are kept, therefore, by the power of God through faith, unto salvation (I Pt. 1,4). This promise of security, however, is a promise of security from sin, and therefore those who fall into willful and habitual sin are not subjects of the promise. Should they fall, it is after a severe struggle, and they are soon renewed again unto repentance. The absolute security of believers and the necessity of contstant watchfulness, are perfectly consistent. Those whom God has promised to save, he has promised to render watchful.”
It always help to read the fullest context.
Bret L. McAtee
Todd R. Harris said,
May 15, 2007 at 6:48 am
Dr. White, fantastic post. My favorite lines: “In the face of apostasy, God does not call on His elect to presume their election; He calls on them to make their calling and election sure. To put it differently, when the warnings against apostasy and wrath come, we are not to presume our election and to ignore them; rather we are to prove our election by trembling at the threats of God’s Word and embracing its promises.”
Do you believe the FV guys would disagree with this, or with some other part of what you wrote?
Anne Ivy said,
May 15, 2007 at 7:33 am
“…God does not call on His elect to presume their election; He calls on them to make their calling and election sure.”
Presuming one is elect does not preclude making one’s calling and election sure, though. Actually, before one puts effort into making something sure, one would presume that something is true, ISTM. I’m not going to try to make my Costa Rican citizenship sure, seeing as how I’m quite confidant I’m not Costa Rican.
It’s because we can presume we are elect (due to having placed our faith in Christ as our sin substitute) that we don’t despair when we fall, but confidently reach our hand out to our Father, certain He will pull us up again.
The problem with the FV is that since perseverance isn’t guaranteed to a believer (those infamous “non-elect believers”!), there’s no certainty that we will reach our hand out to the Father every time we fall, since the desire and ability to thus reach is only by His grace. If He withdraws His grace, we won’t reach, meaning we stay down when we fall.
R. F. White said,
May 15, 2007 at 8:05 am
To Anne,
I agree with your point. What I’m trying to combat in that context is the fact that some presentations of assurance encourage mere presumptousness instead of faith by implying or expressly stating that we don’t have to take the warnings of God seriously. By faith (not presumptousness) we tremble at God’s warnings and embrace his promises.
Chris Hutchinson said,
May 15, 2007 at 8:06 am
Re. 60.
Mark,
And when Jesus said that we must be as perfect (telios) AS GOD IS TELIOS (Mt. 5:48), what did he mean there? Hyperbole?
Chris H.
R. F. White said,
May 15, 2007 at 8:20 am
To Todd Harris:
To my knowledge, FV guys would agree with the substance of what I said about trembling at the threats of God’s Word and embracing its promises. Some would disagree that the blessings of the covenant are different. There have been differences between (e.g.) Wilkins and Wilson on whether the blessings of the covenant are the same or different among the community members.
R. F. White said,
May 15, 2007 at 8:22 am
It seems my response to Andy went into the black hole of blogs. I’ll try again.
To Andy,
Thanks for the interaction. You ask, “By what right did these apostates have access to the blessings from which they apostatize? Clearly the blessings described in Hebrews go beyond descriptions of common grace. In your view, were these apostates real members in covenant with God?” A short answer is, God gave them access to the blessings of the covenant community. Yes, apostates were genuine members of the covenant community.
You comment: “I keep reading this description [namely, “some (not all) of the FV group when they speak of the undifferentiated blessedness of all in the new covenant community] all over the place of the FV, and I wonder where this is coming from.” You are right about Doug Wilson. He does affirm that there is differentiated blessing in the new covenant community. The FV proponent who has spoken most frequently about this idea is Steve Wilkins.
You ask, “So what exactly are [apostates] losing?” As I see it, the impressive blessings they lose are the non-saving blessings of the ministry of the Word and the Spirit. The exodus generation is cited as a chief example in 1 Cor 10 and Heb 3-4 (Ps 95): to many in that generation of the covenant community, the promise of God’s rest was preached, but to no saving effect.
Anne Ivy said,
May 15, 2007 at 8:28 am
You know, the odd thing is some of my friends who have clasped the FV to their bosom have done so because of their worries about assurance. IOW, they were constantly nervous and unsure about it.
I can understand how the FV might be useful for combating the “once saved, always saved” mentality that allows someone to merrily continue in unrepentant sin, but I’ve never quite figured out how it helps someone be assured of their salvation if they weren’t already.
Being told that even if one really DOES believe in the Jesus who is, and really DOES exhibit signs of sanctification, is no guarantee one isn’t going to stop believing in Him and fall away, doesn’t strike me as a comforting reflection. Just the opposite, in fact.
David McCrory said,
May 15, 2007 at 8:28 am
Dr. White that was a fine post. And so for my own benefit I would like to ask, do you believe the covenant of grace is extended to those inside the covenant community yet who remain outside the saving work of Christ?
If so, is it proper to speak to the covenant community (categorically) in such a way as to identify them as the “elect” of God, speak to them of the promises afforded only to those regenerated by the Spirit and so on; even though we recognize that there are those within the sound of our voice to whom these things do not belong?
Todd said,
May 15, 2007 at 8:44 am
Dr. White writes: “What I’m trying to combat in that context is the fact that some presentations of assurance encourage mere presumptousness instead of faith by implying or expressly stating that we don’t have to take the warnings of God seriously.”
Exactly right. There are too many who say that the warning texts don’t really “apply to” the elect at all. Or that they only apply to those who doubt their election.
Anne Ivy said,
May 15, 2007 at 8:52 am
What’s strange is I wasn’t aware unwarranted presumption is a really big problem in PCA, OPC, etc. churches. For sure I’d never noticed such a tendency among the Presbyterians *I* know.
I assume it must be a problem, though, if there needs to be a theological movement to combat it.
David McCrory said,
May 15, 2007 at 8:54 am
Todd I think you and Dr. White are right. We have a tendency to want to peer behind the curtain of God’s decretal will trying to figure out whose elect and whose not rather than spending our effort living for Christ in ways in which he is clearly revealed and has commanded. Calvin seemed very opposed of sticking our noses where they really don’t belong regarding the secret things of God. Spending our time scratching our heads about who is elect and who isn’t, who the warnings apply to who they don’t seems like we’re trying to find something God has chosen to keep hidden.
pduggan said,
May 15, 2007 at 9:12 am
“Being told that even if one really DOES believe in the Jesus who is, and really DOES exhibit signs of sanctification, is no guarantee one isn’t going to stop believing in Him and fall away, doesn’t strike me as a comforting reflection. Just the opposite, in fact.”
I don’t think that’s the emphasis, frankly. There is no place in the weekly liturgy for the minister to remind the worshipper “don’t forget, your faith may fail”
Rather, it’s just constant proclamations of forgiveness and reconciliation *in Christ* and calls to keep believing. to abide in Christ, and not to look elsewhere than Christ.
I find Susanna’s distress at the confessional language that, in fact, argues against “resting” in election unsurprising. I’m just pointing out that’s what the confession indicates. I myself often wonder how we can, at the same time affirm that we are not saved by works in any way, but that the one of the primary things we can LOOK to to make sure we’re really elect, is to see some good works.
“Wow, am I really saved? Well, my works seem to be pretty good…”
The confession says though that we only have that assurance as we walk in obedience and we lose it when we backslide from that walk.
Why isn’t anybody ever complaining that this looks like “assurance by
works” and how can that possibly make sense. Don’t trust your works,
but if you’re concerned to make sure your really saved, just look to
see you have works. That sounds sooo protestant. I guess that’s where Sonship came from.
Anne Ivy said,
May 15, 2007 at 9:29 am
I’d think the “Lord, Lord” passage in Matthew does a dandy job of poking “assurance by works” in the eye, and “final justification by works”, to boot.
A more accurate mindset would be Paul’s “Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called…” (Eph. 4:1, NASB)
pduggan said,
May 15, 2007 at 9:32 am
“I’d think the “Lord, Lord” passage in Matthew does a dandy job of poking “assurance by works” in the eye, and “final justification by works”, to boot.”
Really? those passages seem to more be saying that they trusted in special spiritual powers, and having Jesus around (taught in streets), and saying his name alot, rather than any actual works.
Anne Ivy said,
May 15, 2007 at 9:45 am
No, no, no! The problem wasn’t in the type of works, for pity’s sake, the problem was that when (implied in the verse) challenged as to why they should be allowed in, they referenced themselves and what they’d done (”Lord, Lord, did we not….?”), when the correct response is “But, Lord, YOU….!”
“But Lord…! You died for sinners, of which I am one of the most miserable. Without You I have no hope.”
Pointing to one’s own works and activities will never gain anyone eternal life.
Todd said,
May 15, 2007 at 9:47 am
Anne, what’s the relationship between what you’ve written above and the stated criteria for being “allowed in” in Matthew 25?
markhorne said,
May 15, 2007 at 9:54 am
“But that is a statement about individuals. The additional definition of election as admitted by the committee is not the same as this at all. It says that Israel as a nation was elected from all other nations to be special.”
Isn’t this a classically Arminian argument? To play off individual election v. corporate election? If we believe in total predestination, then we have to believe that every Israelite was chosen to be an Israelite.
Think about the confession an Israelite was required to make in offering sacrifice to God
(Dt 26.5-10).
And you shall make response before the Lord your God, “A wandering Aramean was my father. And he went down into Egypt and sojourned there, few in number, and there he became a nation, great, mighty, and populous. And the Egyptians treated us harshly and humiliated us and laid on us hard labor. Then we cried to the Lord, the God of our fathers, and the Lord heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil, and our oppression. And the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great deeds of terror, with signs and wonders. And he brought us into this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. And behold, now I bring the first of the fruit of the ground, which you, O Lord, have given me.” And you shall set it down before the Lord your God and worship before the Lord your God.
So each Israelite makes an offering and with it a confession. How is that not a confession that God has chosen him? Is it true or not?
Here we have an objective, past, corporate fact—the election and calling of Abraham, the Exodus from Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan. But notice how it is all personal. God rescued *me* from Egypt and brought *me* into the Promised Land. This would be true of an Israelite even though it was generations later.
Notice how national election = personal election:
“‘By a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. For when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of animals. Therefore **I** sacrifice to the Lord all the males that first open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.’ It shall be as a mark on your hand or frontlets between your eyes, for by a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt” (Ex 13.14-16).
“When **your son** asks you in time to come, ‘What is the meaning of the testimonies and the statutes and the rules that the Lord our God has commanded you?’ then you shall say to your son, ‘We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt. And the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. And the Lord showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes. And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land that he swore to give to our fathers. And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.’” (Deut 6.20-25).
If God chose the Church then he chose its members. Otherwise God is not the comprehensive fore-ordinator of all things. The Confession even tells us that unregenerate church members do not join on their own power but are drawn by common operations of the Spirit.
David McCrory said,
May 15, 2007 at 10:01 am
“unregenerate church members do not join on their own power but are drawn by common operations of the Spirit.”
Doesn’t this profession by Mark demonstrate his realization that NECM are not regenerate (never justified in the same way as the elect) and therefore not “dealt with” in the same manner as those who are?
greenbaggins said,
May 15, 2007 at 10:07 am
Oh, that’s rich, Mark, to say that I am using Arminian argumentation. But, of course, I am talking about the “extra” definitions of election, not the decretal definition. I am comparing and contrasting the FV’s “covenantal election” with the “corporate” election that the committee allowed. I am saying that there is quite a difference between saying that Israel was chosen out from among the different nations, versus saying that the benefits that should belong only to the decretally elect can be said to belong to non-decretally elect but covenantally elect. I am saying that those things are two different statements. Is it Arminian to say that because sodium is a poison and chloride is equally poisonous, that the combination can nevertheless be sprinkled on your breakfast eggs? The properties of a group are not necessarily the same as the sum of the individuals entities within that group. Otherwise, table salt would be a poison. This isn’t Arminian argumentation: it’s pure and unadulterated logic. So also, the properties belonging to the election of Israel are not necessarily the same as the properties belonging to the “covenantal blessings”, however one wishes to define those blessings.
R. F. White said,
May 15, 2007 at 10:12 am
To David McCrory:
You asked, “Do you believe the covenant of grace is extended to those inside the covenant community yet who remain outside the saving work of Christ?” I believe we have to answer with a “Yes.” The community formed under the covenant of grace is the visible church made up of “you and your seed.”
You also ask, “Is it proper to speak to the covenant community (categorically) in such a way as to identify them as the ‘elect’ of God, speak to them of the promises afforded only to those regenerated by the Spirit and so on; even though we recognize that there are those within the sound of our voice to whom these things do not belong?” When I look at what the apostles did, I see them do the following. On the premise that the faith of their audiences was credible, the writers ascribed to them all sorts of blessedness and described them by all manner of title bespeaking their election. On the premise that the faith of their audiences was not yet fully and finally differentiated, the writers exhorted their audiences to perseverance (and were covenantally bound to do so), particularly in response to temptation and trial, with promises of everlasting blessing for perseverance and warnings of everlasting curse for apostasy. In the experience of the historical, visible church, the promises are not always embraced; the warnings are not always heeded. Some who had “believed” apostatize (cf. Luke 8:13). After their apostasy, their previously observed conformity to the covenantally revealed traits of those chosen for blessing, on which conformity the affirmations of their salvation and election were based, had to be reinterpreted. That is to say, after their apostasy, the faith they originally confessed was now exposed as temporary faith, not saving faith; there was no longer any covenantal warrant for attributing to them the blessings that belong to saving faith.
What is crucial to notice, I believe, is that the apostles speak in a way that rejects conditionality and hypotheticality in God’s conferral of grace. For example, when Paul acknowledged the apostasy of Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim 2:17-18), he certainly did not concede the reversibility of their election by God; rather he says, “nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: ‘The Lord knows those who are His’” (2 Tim 2:19).
markhorne said,
May 15, 2007 at 10:23 am
Well, since I think those elect to eternal life have some form of qualitatively different blessing (which causes them to truly believe and inherit eternal life) then those who do not, then we have no beef here. But this wasn’t clear to me in the discussion of election. Can we agree that each individual Israelite was called to see God as his redeemer and Lord by virtue of God’s choice of Israel (i.e. Shorter Catechism #44; Larger #101).
“Oh, that’s rich, Mark, to say that I am using Arminian argumentation.”
Well, I try to follow the latest trends.
“Is it Arminian to say that because sodium…”
Zzz Huh, what? Oh. You were expecting me to follow a chemistry analogy. Wow. That’s flattering but you’re preaching way over the head of your audience there.
Still, I think I get your point, maybe.
David McCrory said,
May 15, 2007 at 10:28 am
Amen Dr. White! Thank you for a very succint and thorough answer to a difficult question. And one I can say I agree with wholeheartedly.
“What is crucial to notice, I believe, is that the apostles speak in a way that rejects conditionality and hypotheticality in God’s conferral of grace.”
This is crucial indeed in that it maintains the intergity of the doctrine of election and repobation by never allowing for saving faith to ebb and flow out of the life of a person. Rather their election and or reprobation is accomplished and applied determinitatively and unchangablely. I’m curious if the FV would agree w/ your comment above?
David Ponter said,
May 15, 2007 at 10:36 am
Hey Green, your opening comments and your reply to Mark are confusing me.
Are you saying this:
1) this national election did not entail personal and individual election with in the nation? That is, no decretally non-elect were personally and individually part of this national election?
2) the decretally non-elect are never in-covenant with God?
I am just trying to understand your distinctions and what they may or may not entail.
Thanks in advance
David
markhorne said,
May 15, 2007 at 11:08 am
Lane, maybe it would help to have you comment on this (as well as the catechism questions on the preface to the decalogue I cited above):
From John Calvin, commenting on Deuteronomy 32.6
For, since the fall of Adam had brought disgrace upon all his posterity, God restores those, whom He separates as His own, so that their condition may be better than that of all other nations. At the same time it must be remarked, that this grace of renewal is effaced in many who have afterwards profaned it. Consequently the Church is called God’s work and creation, in two senses, i.e., generally with respect to its outward calling, and specially with respect to spiritual regeneration, as far as regards the elect; for the covenant of grace is common to hypocrites and true believers. On this ground all whom God gathers into His Church, are indiscriminately said to be renewed and regenerated: but the internal renovation belongs to believers only; whom Paul, therefore, calls God’s “workmanship, created unto good works, which God hath prepared, etc.” (Ephesians 2:10.). Calvin, Deut 32:6
Anne Ivy said,
May 15, 2007 at 11:41 am
Reply to Todd’s question way up there (y’all are a chatty bunch this morning!):
“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or without clothes and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and visit You?”
It’s an odd fact that the truly righteous mostly aren’t even aware they are, and don’t consider they’re doing anything particularly “good”.
This is the problem with “works to merit final justification”….if we think we’re racking up Final Justification Points by our actions, we almost certainly are not.
Isn’t that what drove Luther right up a tree? His increasing awareness that if his “final salvation” was at all dependent upon his works, he was in deep, deep trouble?
Yet here comes the FV, teaching that our final salvation depends upon our works!
Not exactly a giant step forward, theologically.
markhorne said,
May 15, 2007 at 11:52 am
“works to merit final justifiation” would be abominated by every “FV” person without exception. The only person in Reformed circles who argued that a Christian’s works were meritorious was John Gerstner. I’ll try not to be bitter about the way he was treated compared to others…
markhorne said,
May 15, 2007 at 11:54 am
“Yet here comes the FV, teaching that our final salvation depends upon our works!”
That makes no more sense than claiming that evangelists teach that our salvation depends upon our faith.
Faith is a gift. Good works are a gift. Both are required (though in different ways).
Todd said,
May 15, 2007 at 11:55 am
And yet, Jesus says what he says: “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’”
You write: “This is the problem with “works to merit final justification”….” You know that no one involved in the FV debate says anyting like that, right? The biblical language is justification “according to works” rather than “on the basis of works.”
Todd said,
May 15, 2007 at 11:59 am
We will certianly not boast about our good works on the day of judgment. But it seems that Jesus will. We won’t be tempted to mention them. But Jesus will. Amazing grace.
Bret L. McAtee said,
May 15, 2007 at 12:09 pm
OK…I’ll bite…
Would you point me to where Gerstner held that the works of Christians were meritorious?
If you are saying that Christ’s good works are required for our salvation I couldn’t agree more.
Shoot, I would even agree that our good works are the ex post facto necessary consequence of our being saved and without the necessary consequence being present the prior state shouldn’t be assumed.
Anne Ivy said,
May 15, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Whoa! Over in the comments on Reply to Jeff Meyers, Part 3, when Richard Gaffin was under discussion, you wrote: “…he did robustly affirm a final judgment/justification according to works…”
How does differ significantly from ““works to merit final justifiation”?
This is the sort of thing I find so dang confusing. =8^o
(FWIW, I’d