Reply to Jeff Meyers, Part 7
May 17, 2007 at 10:01 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)
Point 16 has no merit whatsoever. In this point, Meyers attempts to prove that the WS use the language of “union with Christ” is ways other than decretal salvation. He appeals to LC 167, which is about the improvement of baptism. In his hurry to notice the death and resurrection language of the answer, he forgets the faith language of the answer: “endeavoring to live by faith,” “as those that have therein given up their names to Christ.” The language of improvement of baptism is clearly tied to faith, which is the improvement of baptism, not to the water by itself. Therefore, one is only united to Christ when one comes to faith. Furthermore, Meyers seems not even to have looked at these questions from the LC:
65. What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ? A. The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ? A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling. 67. What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein. 68. Are the elect only effectually called? A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ. (emphasis all mine)
Jeff seems not to have read these questions when making this point, or else he could not have made the point that the Report goes beyond the Confessional language. Notice the logic of the questions: the word “special” in question 65 means “exclusive.” The OED has this definition (among others), which surely fits this occurrence: “Having a distinct or individual character.” No one can really argue that that is how the word is being used here. Plainly, the LC says that unbeleivers do not enjoy union and communion with Christ, either in grace, or in glory. This is very clear language, folks. In case we didn’t get it, the LC defines this union as happening in our effectual calling, whereupon the LC defines our effectual calling as truly coming to Christ, and then in question 68 the idea of the reprobate coming to Christ is explicitly mentioned, only to be emphatically rejected. They never truly come to Jesus Christ. Compare and contrast this with Steve Wilkins:
The elect (he means covenantally elect here, LK) are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect-they are cut off from the Elect One and thus, lose their elect standing. But their falling away doesn’t negate the reality of their standing prior to their apostasy. They were really and truly the elect of God because of their relationship with Christ (emphasis mine)…In fact, covenant is a real relationship, consisting of real communion with the Triune God through union with Christ (emphasis his)…Thus, being in covenant gives all the blessings of being united to Christ (emphasis mine)…Because being in covenant with God means being in Christ (emphasis mine), those who are in covenant have all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. Union with Christ means that all that is true of Christ is true of us. P. 58 of _Federal Vision_.
It is quite clear here that Steve Wilkins affirms that people who will not persevere (who are decretally reprobate) nevertheless have true union and communion with Christ, stated in direct violation of the line of argumentation above given in questions 65-68. Now, I can hear the objection already: Wilkins’s definition of union with Christ here is not the same as the WS’s definition. In this case it doesn’t matter. The LC clearly says that unbelievers never truly come to Christ. Wilkins says they do truly come to Christ, just not permanently. The FV cannot even begin to tell me that there is zero overlap between Wilkins’s definition of union and the WS’s definition of union. There would have to be zero overlap in order for Wilkins not to be contradicting the Standards. But there are nowhere near enough qualifications (as in, there are NO qualifications) in the article cited that tell us that there is no overlap between the two definitions of union, especially since Wilkins says that both unbeliever and believer are united to Christ. In his exam, Wilkins argues that the WS do not directly address the benefits that NECM’s (Non-Elect Covenant Members) receive. However, in this very LC question, it is crystal clear that one benefit that is never received by the NECM is union with Christ. Are FV advocates willing to say that reprobates never truly come to Christ?
Travis m Finley said,
May 17, 2007 at 10:29 am
just trying to post…..posting?
Travis m Finley said,
May 17, 2007 at 10:32 am
I had to put this out of order for posting reasons…2) I take the union of rebrobates to be real and true but not effectual. That is, John 15 talks of covenant members being cut off. There is true and real connection and union albeit not TRULY TRULY (scrumptuous). Mebbe, I’ll try this….the word press SS is telling me I am repeating myself…but really I am trying to post and repost……3) The true coming to X is a matter of faith. Reprobated never truly love Jesus even though married to him. Reprobates are adulterous wives loving other men while their TRULY TRUE man provides them proper attire and nourishment. 1)Uh, soz for ignorance, but what are your abbreviations? OED? QUD? or something like it.
BlackAndTanInTheAM said,
May 17, 2007 at 10:33 am
BTW,
I want to change my name on the posted comments….how do I do this?
BlackAndTanInTheAM said,
May 17, 2007 at 10:34 am
ah….it worked….cool
greenbaggins said,
May 17, 2007 at 11:48 am
But Travis, the WS say that there can be no true union between reprobates and Jesus.
Bret L. McAtee said,
May 17, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Well it won’t post under Meyers #6 so I’ll just try to put it under Meyers #7
Xon,
Thanks for the cheerful and thoughtful interaction.
You wrote,
But if “saved” can mean “received a new status in God’s sight which takes them out of an old way of life and puts them into a new community which is the ordinary means of eternal salvation, even though not every member of that community ends up going to Heaven,” then Yes, I say that NECMs are “saved” temporarily. That’s precisely my point.
Bret
What is the ‘New’ status that they now have that they didn’t have before and presumably will not have again in the future? How does that ‘new’ status correspond to the ‘new’ status of the ECM who will never lose that ‘new’ status. It cannot be ‘peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Are they no longer walking in the futility of their minds? Has their darkened understanding been taken away? Are they no longer alienated from the life of God? Once blind do they know see truth walking around like trees never seeing truth clearly like the ECMs?
Now you say they are “saved,” but I am asking if they are saved.
I do agree that they have been put in the community where the sap of salvation flows and yet without being joined (united) to Christ.
Turretin here,
“But the common and received opinion among the Reformed is different. They hold to a particularity of the covenant (no less than of saving Grace) that although what is extended to many may be called general (especially under the New Testament, the distinction of the nations being taken away), still it never was universal with each and all, but particular only with the true elect members of Christ. Further they think that covenant may be regarded in two ways: either at to internal essence; or as to external dispensation. The former answers to the internal calling and the invisible church of the elect (which is constituted by it). The latter, however, answers to the external calling and the visible church of the called. In the latter respect the covenant is regarded only as to promuglation and presentation, in the preaching of the word; the administration of the sacraments and the participation in sacred things (of which as many as in the people or in the Church retain the same profession, become partakers; and thus it is extended even to many reprobates who remain in the visible church). In the former respect, it is further extended to the acceptation and conferring and reception of all federal benefits and internal communion with Christ by faith. In this sense, it pertain to none other than the elect, who are really partakers of the covenant according to God’s intention, in whom He fulfills the very conditions of the covenant and to whom he not only offers but actually confers the benfits of the covenant.”
Xon
Yes, this is where disagreement has arisen with a couple of different people on my own blog, too. But I appreciate what you just did, Bret. You just granted that, if we define “genuine favor” a certain way, then “there is no doubt” that the NECM can be said to receive “genuine favor.” Thanks, that’s all FVers are saying!
Bret
You’re welcome.
But, remember it is important when communicating with people that people understand just exactly how words or phrases are being used. In this case you are speaking of ‘genuine favor’ in a pen-ultimate sense and not a ultimate sense and you should make that clear when engaged in conversation. Thanks for making it clear with me that you are speaking in pen-ultimate terms and not ultimate terms when you say ‘genuine favor.’
More particularly, though, I actually disagree with your claim that if it works condemnation in the long run then it can’t really be genuine favor. I don’t understand why you say that. If a judge takes a delinquent and sets him up in a mansion rather than sending him to prison (which he deserves), in the hopes that it will move the kid to reform his life, this is a genuine favor. I mean, the kid enjoys being at the mansion while he is there. When the kid later breaks out and returns to his old ways, and this time the judge throws him in the clink, the fact that he ended up in the clink doesn’t retroactively make the mansion a crappy time. No, the mansion still was a good time. It just didn’t last. What do you think?
Bret
I think that if the judge put the kid in the mansion with the express purpose of increasing his culpability and eventual judgment for refusing the kindness of the Judge that the kid would probably reconsider his assessment of how good a time it was in light of the greater condemnation that it garnered.
Thanks Xon,
Xon said,
May 17, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Hey again, Brett, thanks for your tone and thoughtfulness as well!
You mean the kid should suddenly think that the food didn’t really taste good, that the beds weren’t really soft and comfy, that the t.v. didn’t really show all of his favorite shows?
I think we’re down to a fairly minor disagreement here, anyway. You’ve granted me (right?) the right to speak of this as a “genuine favor”, so long as it is clear that I’m not speaking of “ultimate” favor. I think this should be clear even if I don’t take the time to make it clear–genuine does not imply ultimate in my mind–but I’ve gone ahead and made it clear anyway, so I guess we’re good to go on this point.
I agree, wholeheartedly, that once in Hell (jail) the sinner (delinquent) will be pretty bitter and none of his earlier pleasant experiences will comfort him at all then. But nonetheless those earlier experiences will remain pleasant in themselves. That’s all I’m wanting to say.
As for Turretin’s quote, I agree with him about there being both an “internal essence” and an “external dispensation” of the covenant, but I would prefer other words for this than “internal” vs. “external.” But I agree that all people get certain things within the covenant, and only the elect get other things.
Xon said,
May 17, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Sorry I misspelled your name, Bret!
Black&TanInTheAM said,
May 17, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Response to JJM #7
“The language of improvement of baptism is clearly tied to faith, which is the improvement of baptism, not to the water by itself. Therefore, one is only united to Christ when one comes to faith.”
**Here, GB, I must ask you to exegete John 15.
“It is quite clear here that Steve Wilkins affirms that people who will not persevere (who are decretally reprobate) nevertheless have true union and communion with Christ, stated in direct violation of the line of argumentation above given in questions 65-68.”
**Again, please exegete John 15.
“But Travis, the WS say that there can be no true union between reprobates and Jesus.”
**I would have to disagree. It says they never truly come to him and this by faith. This adverb does not negate the initial credal union (if an adult) and baptism. For instance, Joe Bubblegum hears you preach the gospel and responds. He is baptised and under your tutelage he is discipled. Within a period of four years he yearns for his former life of girls, girls, girls. He leaves the church and never (to this day) returns. [Now, this is the case with my former pastor’s good high school chum.] Here is my take on this. We’ll call him Gavin (for that is his name). Gavin was married to Christ (really) and ate with Christ quarterly (truly). Gavin truly and really broke the covenant. He is an apostate son. Why? Because he was baptised. Is this not the case? Yes, it is. When Gavin dies and if he dies in rebellion to Christ he will be judged an apostate son. Why? Because he was baptised.
Now, imagine another scenario. Gavin never got baptised. Let’s change the gender and name. Her name is Gina. She has attended church and “celebrated” the supper for the past five years. She has a profession of faith but no baptism. She is waiting til her children (all teens) come to faith. Now, to be sure, this church is not reformed in any Calvinistic sense. Here is what I say. She is not married to Christ. She has a profession of faith. She will tell my mother that she loves Jesus and serves in the church ad nauseum but I say she is not united to Christ. There is no covenant to break here. Truly, really, or otherwise. Why? B/c she has not been baptised. Now, contra Gavin, Gina will not die an apostate daughter. She will not suffer the same wrath as Gavin. Why? B/c she was not baptised. A person’s personal faith means nada without the Church’s thumbs up and blessing in the sacrament. This is the rule. Are there exceptions? Yes. But those are not the norm, they are exceptions. The rule is “no Church as madre, no God as padre.”
This is the power of the sacraments. Indulge me, again. Our baptist brethren do not apply the sign to infants because of their ordo salutis. The sign belongs to no one but those of faith. I feel we TRs are no less baptistic than they when we apply the sign. I am left scratching my head so often when I see cov’t children baptised. “So, what just happened? I know you went to lengths telling me what didn’t happen but I’m not sure what to believe did happen.” Here’s what didn’t happen: “This baptism does not save this baby. This baptism does not take away this child’s sins. This baptism does not unite her to Jesus. This baptism does not regenerate this child…ad infinitum & nauseum. BUUUUUUT this baptism does acknowledge that when this child comes to faith all of God’s promises held out to her and her parents will be true of her. In this baptism today God promises these parents to save their child when she comes of age and believes. God promises today to take away her sins, to unite her to Christ, to regenerate her and give her all the benefits that befit a child of God when she believes. Amen and amen. Let us pray….” (to be continued)
Now, as to the above, this is what is preached in every non FV church in the PCA. I hear it regularly. And it truly breaks my heart. Here’s why. What are we saying that Baptists are not? Our reformed baptisms are nothing less than baptist dedications. They are. We emasculate Christ and dehydrate the element. We end up saying NOTHING less than an evangelist at a crusade. “If you will but come to Jesus he will…..” The only thing missing is water. Why not (I know why not, it’s rhetoric) baptise everyone and say, “OK, when you get around to believing this stuff…” How is what we do different than our baptist brethren? You might want to say “much in every way” but your dehydrating the element negates your wishes. Here is what we end up saying, “God has blessed this family. You parents are blessed. God has given you a covenant child to raise into the faith. Pray for her. Teach her. Discipline her. She is not a Christian yet, though. She must make your faith her own. She is privileged in every way. She will hear the Gospel from a young age and be taught all the principles of our faith. How blessed she truly is…”…anon. Actually, I lied. This was a baptist dedication ceremony.
Now, I can hear you retort. But I have to confess, b/c of what I hear we believe about baptism, I truly do not know why we apply the water. Truly I don’t. Unless it actually means something. Unless it actually threatens something. Unless the sacrament actually means something sacred (save some future desperate-hopeful-finger-crossing-hope) we are refined baptists.
…continued…10 years pass and she apostasizes and dies unrepentant. At her funeral, the same pastor who said the above says, “Remember all that stuff I said about this child when she came to faith because she was baptised? Never mind.”
Glenn said,
May 17, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Lane, you said, “Are FV advocates willing to say that reprobates never truly come to Christ?”
Your question is the whole reason that the FV guys have a problem with pop-Presbyterianism. As Wilson said in the debate with James White, “I wish that most of my Presbyterian Brothers would stop being inconsistent and go become Reformed Baptists.” (my recollection of what he said)
If apostasy is real, then there are NECMs who are temporarily united to Christ. But if apostasy is not real, then the Reformed Faith has some serious problems to deal with. Which is it? Is apostasy real or not?
Glenn said,
May 17, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“In his hurry to notice the death and resurrection language of the answer, he forgets the faith language of the answer: “endeavoring to live by faith,” “as those that have therein given up their names to Christ.” The language of improvement of baptism is clearly tied to faith, which is the improvement of baptism, not to the water by itself. Therefore, one is only united to Christ when one comes to faith.”
What kind of logic is that? How do you conclude that it only happens when one comes to faith??? So, all the babies baptized into Christ really are not in Christ???
Nothing in LC 167 says or even hints at the idea that “one is only united to Christ when one comes to faith.” I can respect honest disagreement Lane, but this is just simple negligence or it is really bad logic.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 17, 2007 at 10:13 pm
An FV conspiracy at GCP?
First Catechism (2003):
131: Q. What does this washing with water represent? A. That we are united to Christ and cleansed from sin by his blood.
Even worse: 24: Q. What is a covenant? A. A relationship that God establishes with us and guarantees by his word.
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:31 am
Glenn, you haven’t dealt with what the Confession teaches, nor have you engaged with the substance of my argumenation regarding LC 65-68.
Glenn, do you agree that there is a distinction between the visible and the invisible church? The way you are arguing sounds rather Roman Catholic to me.
Glenn, I have already exegeted John 15 here:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2006/12/02/john-15-and-the-federal-vision/
Anne Ivy said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:33 am
Dang, but I hate to put my ignorance on public display.
But there it is…I’m ignorant.
Todd, what is GCP, please?
Todd said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:42 am
No problem. Great Commission Publications, the PCA/OPC publishing outfit.
http://www.gcp.org/
Those catechism answers sound pretty fishy to me.
Anne Ivy said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:51 am
Mare-see boo-koo! ;^)
Glenn said,
May 18, 2007 at 10:15 am
Lane,
Thanks for pointing to the post. I will go read through it.
—”The way you are arguing sounds rather Roman Catholic to me.”
That’s funny. I was simply dealing with my thoughts on Scripture. ;-)
—”do you agree that there is a distinction between the visible and the invisible church?”
Of course, but it’s of no practical worth to the Church. People should understand it for the sake of the doctrine of decreetal election, but nothing more than that.
—”you haven’t dealt with what the Confession teaches, nor have you engaged with the substance of my argumentation regarding LC 65-68″
Okay, I was simply dealing with your comment about LC 167. I don’t believe your comment holds true and I don’t see where you established it. It seemed like you were simply asserting it. Were you or not?
Second, regarding your argumentation for LC 65-68, I would point out that the language of “never truly” is the problem everyone on the FV side is having. Not that it is not legitimate in a strictly systematic sense, but that it is not representative of the full breadth of Scriptures language. It seems to me that the FV side can accept it, but they cannot be restricted to it.
I hold very strongly to the TULIP, especially Limited Atonement. But that doesn’t mean that Scripture talks only in those ways or that Scripture should be restricted to being understood on the systematic categories of the TULIP. That would be putting an extra-Scriptural thing above Scripture in the ultimate and non-protestant sense.
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 10:33 am
Look, 167 is about the *improvement* of baptism, not baptism as it happens at the moment of baptism. My point is that faith is not divorced from this improvement. That is proved from the phrases of that question that were quoted in the post. In fact, there are further evidences: how can one give “serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it” without faith? The unbeliever will never understand what baptism is. You also seem to forget the WS’s definition of “sacramental language” in WCF 27.2, which I would advise you look up. Just about every FV discussion of baptism forgets this point.
Furthermore, you are using “not limited to” in regard to LC 65-68 to justify a complete contradiction of LC 65-68! This kind of sophistry is precisely what the TR’s critique. *NECM’s never truly come to Christ.* Period. End of story. If someone believes differently, then they do not belong in a WS denomination.
Andrew Voelkel said,
May 18, 2007 at 10:44 am
Hey Green Baggins,
I’ve been busy, but still trying to keep up with the discussion here.
Thanks for posting the question:
“Are FV advocates willing to say that reprobates never truly come to Christ?”
That question really gets to the heart of the matter.
I suspect that FV advocates would all “quibble” with the language of the confession here. That is to say, they might all argue that “yes, reprobates do really come to Christ, in some sense; (even if there coming is different than that of the “eternally elect”).
If the PCA required “Strict Subscription” to the Westminster Standards, then the FV guys might really be in trouble here. But since we don’t require strict subscription, some people think it is okay to take issue with the confession on this point.
And that brings us to what I believe is a shortcoming in the PCA FV/NPP Report.— The Report (the whole assignment for that matter) focuses on where the FV/NPP differs from the Standards. But ultimately, that is not what we need to know.
The ultimate question must be: Are the FV “exceptions to the Standards” acceptable in light of scripture?
The FV guys argue that “apostates” are presented in scripture as really coming to Christ (believing for a while), but then falling away. Or similarly, as really being in some sort of “union” with Christ, but then being cut off.
Is the FV position contrary to the Standards? Maybe (depending on how we define “contrary”.
Is the FV position contrary to Scripture? —> that is the million dollar question!
blessings,
av
——————
p.s. I recently heard someone describe this “controversy” as the “Strict Subscription Debate Part II.” — That is an interesting way to describe it.
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 10:59 am
I would certainly agree with you that the FV folk would quibble with the language of the WS there. What further would the FV folk say about 10.4?
Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved.
Are you going to tell me that this falls within the bounds of good-faith subscription to deny such a thing? This debate is about anything *but* good-faith subscription, although I think that good-faith subscription has contributed to our problems rather a lot. This debate is about the difference between the elect and the non-elect. This is absolutely essential to the system of doctrine taught in the WS. In fact, there is hardly anything more essential. I don’t think you’re going to hear the orthodox good-faith people defending the FV on this one at GA.
Todd said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:03 am
Wilkins, at least, is very comfortable with the “never truly come unto Christ” language of the confession.
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:07 am
Well, apparently, he isn’t, from pp. 58ff of _Federal Vision_. He does say that unbelievers, who are part of the covenant, are truly united to Christ. You have by no means exonerated Wilkins from contradiction.
Todd said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:15 am
I only said that he is comfortable with it; he doesn’t take exception, and deals with it in his paper for presbytery.
Glenn said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:19 am
WCF 27.2 - “There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other”
Lane, you said, “My point is that faith is not divorced from this improvement.”
Exactly, that’s great! So do the FV men.
—”*NECM’s never truly come to Christ.* Period. End of story. If someone believes differently, then they do not belong in a WS denomination.”
Then what denom. do they belong in? I think that they can all affirm that NECM’s don’t truly come to Jesus. My problem is… who would want to use that abstract language to explain the full meaning of Biblical language? (as I said before) I think that’s part of the main concern the FV camp has.
In the end, this is not heretical and I don’t see why its that problematic. If it must be decided against the FV camp regarding what the WS use for language proper, just let them take an exception - of affirming what it says yet not limiting themselves to that language - just like exceptions to the Pope being antichrist language is permitted. ;-)
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:20 am
Todd, this is the same frustrating contradictory sophistry that most of the FV people make. As you very well know, I read his exam, and commented rather extensively on it. Someone can say “I’m confortable with the WS,” but if in other places of their theology they contradict the WS, then what credibility does the statement retain? This is the whole point. I have said about six million times that many of the FV *verbally* affirm the WS, but *contradict* the WS by their doctrine. And I have further attempted many, many times to prove that. IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT THEY AFFIRM THE WS. That does not even remotely answer my point. My point is that they contradict the WS, not that they do not affirm the WS. Will you ever get that into your brain, Todd?
Glenn said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:20 am
I agree with Todd, you cannot force these guys to take exception where they don’t take exception. It’s just not possible.
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:24 am
Glenn, the point about Antichrist is irrelevant, since that section has been edited out of the American edition of the WS that the PCA affirms. Secondly, they belong in Wilson’s CREC. Thirdly, this is not an exception that I would *ever* be wiling to grant. I am on the Candidates and Credentials committee of our Presbytery. That is quite simply not an exception that is accpetable. We have granted (and I have granted) exceptions on the Sabbath issue. But that is a far cry from messing with the categories of election and reprobation. There is no room for wiggling there. Plus, I do not think that the FV says what you are saying about faith and baptism.
Glenn said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:24 am
Lane,
I didn’t see your post to Todd until after I posted my agreement with him. I think that you might be able to prove some things regarding what the FV guys say, but in the end (as I said above) none of it is worth splitting fellowship over. The biggest critique for the TR camp is that they do not have a Biblical view of catholicity and what constitutes dis-fellowship, at least not in my view. ;-)
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:27 am
Well, I’m sorry you see things that way. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the TR’s, the FV crowd has seriously compromised the Gospel.
Todd said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:29 am
“IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT THEY AFFIRM THE WS. That does not even remotely answer my point. My point is that they contradict the WS, not that they do not affirm the WS.”
No, Lane. Your statements this morning are different. You said, “I would certainly agree with you that the FV folk would quibble with the language of the WS there. What further would the FV folk say about 10.4?”
Todd said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:31 am
“Seriously compromised the Gospel,” but still brothers in Christ?
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:33 am
Todd, you really are confused today, aren’t you? FV folk have not come out and said that they quibble with LC 65-68 or 10.4. So, the conversation was speculative about what they would do. At least, I am not aware of any place where they come out say, “I disagree with LC 65-68 or 11.4.” I think that if they were honest, they would say that. But they have not said that as yet. They verbally do affirm the WS, and in their theology deny the WS. So, despite your best, confused efforts, you cannot make those two statements of mine contradict.
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:33 am
Someone can be a true Christian himself, even if he is confused on the Gospel.
Glenn said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:42 am
Lane, I like you and I appreciate your work. I cannot agree with you that the FV have compromised the Gospel. I think I would still disagree with them about certain things that they push too far, but I’m not coming to your conclusions or the TRs conclusions.
In the end, the schisms of our day have fully compromised the Gospel. The PCA report calls the FV men Brothers in Christ. But if the PCA ends up kicking them out or something, then it will inevitably be saying that “you are not our Brothers in Christ.” This would be very sad and an even further compromise of the Gospel for the protestant world.
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:50 am
Glenn, I think you have confused what I said in 33. We wouldn’t ordain a Baptist minister in our denom, would we? Why? Because he isn’t our brother in Christ? No, but because he wouldn’t teach the WS’s version of biblical doctrine. He would not affirm the covenantal basis for infant baptism. That is not an exception that we would allow in our denom. That does not fall under the good-faith subscription. Frankly, however, Mark Dever fits more confortably with the WS than do the FV folk, who are contradicting the WS’s teaching on election, justification, baptism, assurance, and covenant. Mark Dever would only disagree with the WS on covenant and baptism. I notice that the retort of the FV folk is always “Well, why don’t you just call yourselves Baptists?” As if that was some kind of lock-down final argument. Why not admit Baptists like Mark Dever to the PCA, if their argument is correct? If Mark can hold to the “substance” of the WS, while only disagreeing with the bit about baptism and covenant, then why not? Somehow, I don’t think the FV would appreciate having Baptists in our denom. But I would not admit a Baptist into our denom either. But surely Mark Dever cannot be called an “unbrother.”
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:50 am
And standing up for the truth is not schismatic. The Reformers were called the same thing in their day.
Todd said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:50 am
“I think that if they were honest, they would say that.”
OK. You’ve said it coherently now. The “if they were honest” is what had been missing. Well done.
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:54 am
So, Todd, you would disagree with Andrew Voelkel in 19? We both agreed that the FV folk would quibble with LC 65-68 and WCF 10.4. If they would, but haven’t, then are they being honest?
Todd said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:58 am
I dunno. How could I?
Andy Gilman said,
May 18, 2007 at 12:09 pm
But even brothers can be guilty of sin, or of teaching heretical errors. The test will come when, or if, the denomination or individual presbyteries, call on those brothers to repent of their sin and cease their erroneous teaching. The brothers who remain will be those who take seriously their ordination vow, in which they promised subjection to their brethren in the Lord.
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Yes, I have no problem with calling many of the FV advocates brothers in Christ. I would argue, however, that it is in spite of their FV theology, not because of it, just as I would argue that an Arminian can be a Christian despite his theology and not because of it.
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Todd, if ordained officers are required to state all their differences with the WS, and they have not done so, but have actual differences that they have not reported, then are they not in violation of their oath, which requires them to state their differences, as well as any change of mind they might have had?
Glenn said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Lane, you said, “We wouldn’t ordain a Baptist minister in our denom, would we? Why? Because he isn’t our brother in Christ? No, but because he wouldn’t teach the WS’s version of biblical doctrine.”
No, you wouldn’t, but I believe that the denominational divisions are saying that Christians don’t view each other as their brother in Christ (even if they say they are). That’s all I was trying to say.
I think it would be nice if we could develop a grand umbrella system to encompass all the protestant denominations under one name having open communion/membership transition with a formula of confessions that people could subscribe to. And I also think it would be good, once that system was established to write a new confession or two. ;-)
—”Somehow, I don’t think the FV would appreciate having Baptists in our denom.”
Doesn’t Wilson’s CREC allow Baptists? I remember it being said on his CREC examination audio.
anneivy said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I’m sure I’ve heard that’s accurate….that both credo and paedo views are accepted in the CREC.
I think that’s nice, myself.
Black&TanInTheAM said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Wow. I got no feed back on my #9 comment. Sigh.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 18, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I’ve heard it recently (from reliable sources!) that all the CREC credo pastors/churches are formerly credo, presently paedo. They don’t last long, I guess.
Glenn said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Regarding what the Reformed Baptists think…
I just saw this blog entry. It’s interesting to read what he thinks about the Anti-FV crowd and their inconsistency. ;-)
http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2007/05/doctrinal-testimony-regarding-recent.html