Individualism
May 30, 2007 at 1:28 pm (Federal Vision)
I am not sure whether Doug will respond to my review of chapter 5 of RINE, so I am going to move ahead. Doug has been rather extraordinarily busy with the whole MARS thing.
Chapter 6 of RINE, entitled “Individualism” is a very short chapter consisting of 3 pages. The thesis is that corporate and individual aspects of salvation should not be played off against one another. To use his own memorable phrase, “The fact that we believe in a corporate covenant omelette does not mean we disbelieve in eggs” (p. 57). He makes the point that “we go to heaven or hell by ones” (p. 58). Individuals are the counting units (ibid). However, we must take care not to over-emphasize either individualism or corporateness at the expense of the other.
I have a few questions of clarification for Doug: what does he means by saying “A man is not defined by his internal essence” (p. 58)? What is the relationship of such a statement (which presumably is about covenantal relationships) to the statement in Scripture, “As a man thinks in his heart, so he is” (Proverbs 23:7: note that the various translations differ considerably in their renderings). If a man’s internal essence is defined by the Holy Spirit, then doesn’t his essence form at least part of who he is?
Second question: regarding omelettes, are the eggs Christians in the decretal sense? If so, how do they make up a corporate covenant omelette which presumably contains unbelievers? Do believers and hypocrites together make up a truly scrambled mush? I guess I am not quite sure how the analogy is supposed to work. I agree with the basic point that covenantal and individual aspects of salvation are not to be played off against one another. However (and this is not what Wilson is saying, I hope) this does not mean that the omelette is undifferentiated.
tim prussic said,
May 30, 2007 at 3:21 pm
It seems to me that Pastor Wilson’s arguing that there are aspects of our great salvation that are conceieved of primarily as individual and others primarily as corporate. When one thinks of an individual Christian, one’s mind, as a matter of covenantal course, should be drawn to the body of which the one is a part. Also, when one thinks of the body of Christ, one should understand it’s made up of individuals.
That doesn’t help us in drawing the specific lines, but it does alert us that there are lines to be drawn and gives us an idea what direction they should be going.
Chris said,
May 30, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Yeah well, that will make you think twice about what the confession teaches now won’t it. How bout those list of divines and their views of baptismal efficacy!
http://www.joelgarver.com/docs/Questions_and_Concerns.pdf
Chris said,
May 30, 2007 at 4:18 pm
and here are 12 more that came out today as well:
http://www.prpc-stl.org/auto_images/118055886712Reasons.pdf
greenbaggins said,
May 30, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Chris, this is a condensation of the 30 reasons, not an additional 12 reasons.
Chris said,
May 30, 2007 at 4:35 pm
good point. thanks.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 30, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Chris has linked a great letter about the PCA report from non-FV pastors.
tim prussic said,
May 30, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Seems to be a scattered bit of conversation, here. I’m certainly interested in the discussion of the effects of revivalism and individualism. Is Pastor Wilson correct that these two isms are things that we need to understand thoroughly and comprehend how they may have come to effect our understanding of the Scripture and the Standards? Tim thinks so. Tim’s also worried about reacting to the misunderstanding in an unbiblical way.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 30, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Is Tim is starting to speak about himself in third-person?
Andy Gilman said,
May 30, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Regarding the link in #2, I would like to know what these pastors mean by this question:
“Why does the committee narrowly interpret our standards to speak “only” of union with Christ as belonging to the decretally elect when there are ways that our standards understand this more broadly?”
What ways do “our standards understand this more broadly?”
tim prussic said,
May 30, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Todd, Tim’ll do whate’er it takes.
Tim
Andy Gilman said,
May 30, 2007 at 6:47 pm
I just now noticed the footnote that the pastors gave in that document, but WLC 167 gives no credence to their notion that “there are ways that our standards understand this more broadly.” The LC makes it abundantly clear that it is the decretally elect, and only the decretally elect, who enjoy “union and communion” with Christ.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 30, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Andy, I agree with you. And yet, in 167, all who are baptized are encouraged to draw strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized.
Andy Gilman said,
May 30, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Not that we should read too much into this, but for those who remember the debate/discussion which ensued when the “Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together” statement surfaced, I think it’s at least mildly interesting that of the ten pastors listed on the “Questions and Concerns” document linked in #2, seven of them were also signers of the “Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together” statement.
tim prussic said,
May 31, 2007 at 9:42 am
Andy, can’t we speak beyond the Standards? Beyond is not necessarily against. Do the Standards delimit the area of legitimate discussion and belief? Suppose that the Westminster Standards speak of union/communion only in a decretal sense, does that prevent us from making a clear distinction and speaking of it in a complimentary way?
It seems that this can boil down to how one sees the Standards functioning: as a high water mark or as a foundation. A high water mark can’t be improved upon, while a foundation is to be built upon with care. Maybe there are other analogies that will work better than those.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 11:42 am
Lane I think your point about the nature of the eggs (are they decretally elect?) is excellent. Wouldn’t decretally elect eggs, comprise a decretally elect omelette? Additionally, individuals remain distinguishable in a corporate setting. We aren’t all scrambled together into an undistinguishable glob.
Andy Gilman said,
May 31, 2007 at 11:45 am
Regarding Tim Prussic’s question in #14:
This is a different matter from the one I commented on in #9 and #11. These pastors are disputing the interim committee’s report, arguing that the Standards allow for a “broader” reading of “union with Christ.” The LC which they appeal to, is absolutely clear that “union with Christ” is something enjoyed by the decretally elect, and they alone.
With regard to whether or not reformed people can speak of “union with Christ” in some “other sense;” I would say, only with utmost care. Especially when those people want to speak of “union with Christ” in a way that seemingly contradicts the Standards. If the Standards say that “union with Christ” is for the decretally elect only, and someone wants to say that all baptized members of the visible church enjoy “union with Christ” in “some sense,” then they had better make it absolutely clear what they mean, and clearly distinguish between what they mean by “union with Christ,” and what the Standards mean by “union with Christ,” to remove any possible doubt that they are contradicting the Standards. They should do this every time they speak of “union with Christ” with their alternate meaning.
To date, I haven’t seen anything from the FV which even differentiates between what they mean by “union with Christ” and what the Standards mean by “union with Christ.” Not only do they fail to go out of their way to always make their meaning clear whenever they use an alternate meaning, but they never make their meaning clear. I have yet to see them clearly differentiate between hypocrites and true professors, as they exist in the church today. The only difference in the FV paradigm, between “hypocrites” and true professors, is the duration of their “union with Christ.” The reality is that in the FV, there are no hypocrites in the church. All are “united with Christ.” God has ordained that some of those who are “united with Christ” will eventually apostatize and thereby “become” hypocrites by a failure to persevere. Those who become hypocrites will be pruned from the vine.
The FV advocates will SAY “we don’t mean ‘union with Christ’ in the same way,” yet they are unable to define a difference except with respect to perseverence. If you have been following the arguments on this blog, you will know that I do not believe that Leithart, Wilkins and Xon’s esoteric ‘teleological ontology’ argument really defines a difference. It is a smokescreen. But even if it really did define a difference, it would be incumbent upon the FV advocates, in order to avoid confusion, to make this distinction clear everywhere they write about “union with Christ.”
Todd R. Harris said,
May 31, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Andy, isn’t it true that in LC 167, *all* who are baptized are encouraged to draw strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized?
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I’d say so Todd, yet I’d add not all are given the capacity to do so. If or when they are given it, then the testimony of their baptism becomes efficacious. Would you agree?
Sean Gerety said,
May 31, 2007 at 12:11 pm
David McCrory writes:
Additionally, individuals remain distinguishable in a corporate setting. We aren’t all scrambled together into an undistinguishable glob.
Good point. John Robbins makes this same point in “Not Reformed At All”:
“In Wilson’s analogy, eggs represent individuals and omelettes represent the whole, what he calls “a corporate covenant omelette.” This is a strange metaphor for a professed Christian to use, since it was made notorious by the first Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin: “One cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs.” In saying this, Lenin was defending his bloody Communist Revolution. But Lenin, more perceptive than Wilson, understood that there is indeed a “tension” between omelettes and eggs, because eggs must be broken and scrambled in order to make an omelette. Like Wilson, Lenin was a collectivist — Wilson in a theological and ecclesiastical sense, and Lenin in an economic and political sense; but unlike Wilson, Lenin did not pretend that there is no tension between omelettes and eggs. In Wilson’s theology and in Lenin’s political philosophy, eggs — individuals — must be broken and their individuality destroyed in order to make the collective omelette.
. . . Wilson’s metaphor is the metaphor the Communists used, not the metaphor Scripture uses. The Scriptural metaphor is not an omelette, but a human body, in which each part — the eye, the ear, the hand — retains and glories in its individuality, while contributing to the well-being of the whole. In the Scriptural metaphor — but not in Wilson’s and Lenin’s collectivist metaphor — the eye becomes more discerning, the ear more acute, the hand more dexterous, by being joined to the Head. The intensification and enhancement of their individuality benefits both them and the whole body. They are not scrambled into some homogeneous omelette in which there is neither eye nor hand nor ear nor head. They become better in their individual purposes and functions, and because they become better individuals, they benefit the body more and more.”
Todd R. Harris said,
May 31, 2007 at 12:12 pm
David, that sounds just about right. The pastoral question here is really interesting to me–are we teaching our kids to “presume their regeneration” when we teach them to improve their baptism, to draw strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom they are baptized? Shall we speak to our kids like this from the very beginning of their lives, or should we wait for some sort of evidence of regeneration?
tim prussic said,
May 31, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Andy, in what is union with Christ (in traditional jargon) based? Can we tell if anyone is actually united to Christ? Do we have to base our assessment of someone’s “in Christ” status completely on their fruit without anything more objective, like say, signs of the covenant?
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 12:22 pm
“are we teaching our kids to “presume their regeneration” when we teach them to improve their baptism, to draw strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom they are baptized?”
~ I think rather than placing it in terms of presumed regeneration (something hidden from our eyes) we should categorize it in something like a presumed promise. We have the Lord’s objective, tangable promise to work in and through the covenant by virture of godly offspring. So that we deal with covenant children based upon the promise of God, not so much so the presumption of regeneration.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Wilson had a saying that we shouldn’t be trying to “check hearts at the door” whether they’re regenerated or not. I believe in objectivity. We should appeal to a person’s profession in and through baptism. It is a sign (and a seal to the elect only) of regeneration and the wayward baptized soul should be admonished to live according to what his baptism promises to the people of God. If or when that will ever come to fruition is dependent upon the work of God.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 31, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Good stuff, David.
tim prussic said,
May 31, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Sean, that Robbins quote seems to me typical Robbins. He seems quite often has to import his own understanding of a thing into another’s thinking in order to debunk the other’s ideas. Where I’m from that called cheating. The egg/omlet analogy is used widely and need not have any reference to Lenin. Also, quite typical of Robbins, there’s some good stuff in what he’s saying. There is a certain tension ‘twixt the one and many - say I think I read something about that in philosophy somewhere. His analysis of the biblical body analogy is helpful and appreciated.
I don’t think that Wilson was really riding the egg/omlet analogy trying to line it up with Scripture, so much as he was just using it as a cliche - something that everyone basically understands without difficulty.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Here’s Calvin in his commentary on Gen. 17 dealing with the covenant of Abraham and those therein, suggesting the NECM does have a right to be called a child of God (in a certain sense),
“What, therefore, can be the meaning of Paul, when he denies that certain persons have any right to be reckoned among children, except that he is no longer reasoning about the externally offered grace, but about that of which only the elect effectually partake? Here, then, a twofold class of sons presents itself to us in the Church; for since the whole body of the people is gathered together into the fold of God, by one and the same voice, all without exception, are in this respects accounted children; the name of the Church is applicable in common to them all: but in the innermost sanctuary of God, none others are reckoned the sons of God, than they in whom the promise is ratified by faith. And although this difference flows from the fountain of gratuitous election, whence also faith itself springs; yet, since the counsel of God is in itself hidden from us, we therefore distinguish the true from the spurious children, by the respective marks of faith and of unbelief.”
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Great passage from Calvin, David. Here we clearly have Calvin saying that yes, there is one sense in which NECM’s belong to the covenant, but another sense in which they are unbelievers.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 1:57 pm
I think it is interesting that he says only the elect “effectually partake” of God’s offered grace. I wonder if Calvin would agree NECM’s “partake” in God’s grace to some degree, but certianly not in an efficacious sense.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 1:59 pm
If they partake, it is only to judgment.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Right, a temporal blessing, if you will, but eternal judgment. Are you convinced either way as to whether they do recieve some form of blessing?
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:05 pm
They receive the common operations of the Holy Spirit. But the problem here is that they are common between NECM’s and pagans, not common between NECM’s and ECM’s. I would say futher, however, that they sit under the means of grace, even though they cannot ever receive any blessings that are reserved for the elect, such as justification, and *all* the other ordo salutis benefits.
Sean Gerety said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Tim writes:
Sean, that Robbins quote seems to me typical Robbins. He seems quite often has to import his own understanding of a thing into another’s thinking in order to debunk the other’s ideas. Where I’m from that called cheating.
I think Wilson’s attack on biblical individualism is quite pronounced and even pervasive in RINE (and on his blog and in his rag) and Robbins’ comparison to Lenin is apt.
There is a certain tension ‘twixt the one and many - say I think I read something about that in philosophy somewhere.
Yeah, I’ve read that too and I think if people paid closer attention to the philosophic arguments you allude to we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The chickens are coming home to roost. John Robbins has been saying that for years too. While as you might say “typical Robbins,” I’m afraid he was right.
I don’t think that Wilson was really riding the egg/omlet analogy trying to line it up with Scripture, so much as he was just using it as a cliche - something that everyone basically understands without difficulty.
It seems to me that most of Wilson’s analogy don’t line up with Scripture. I guess we just disagree on what it is he was trying to do.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:08 pm
“they are common between NECM’s and pagans, not common between NECM’s and ECM’s”
Okay. So you don’t find some 3rd level of grace for NECM’s distinct from the common operations of the Spirit in general. Common Grace/Special Grace, that’s it. Right?
Todd R. Harris said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:09 pm
“But the problem here is that they are common between NECM’s and pagans, not common between NECM’s and ECM’s.”
Hey, this sounds interesting. No sarcasm. Lane, what’s your evidence for this?
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Yes, I think that is what the divines meant by “common.” The blessings that NECM’s receive are condemnation to them not just at the end of time, but even while they are experiencing them, since they *never* participate by means of faith. I acknowledge that there is such a thing as “historical faith,” but I deny utterly that *any* saving benefits come with that. They are never justified, nor is any other ordo salutis category applied to them. Ultimately speaking, there are only two categories. And that is true in the present, not just in the future.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Well, I think the common grace/special grace distinction is evidence for how the divines used the word “common.” The word “common” in the WS is always set against the word “special.” The WS does not limit the operations to those who are in the visible church. That is the clincher argument, imo. There is nothing in WCF 10.4 that says that the common operations are limited to the visible church. They can be given to outright pagans, as well.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Here are the prooftexts for “common operations”:
q. Matt. 13:20–21. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is
he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. Matt. 7:22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Heb. 6:4–5. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come …
Todd R. Harris said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:18 pm
“The WS does not limit the operations to those who are in the visible church. That is the clincher argument, imo. There is nothing in WCF 10.4 that says that the common operations are limited to the visible church. They can be given to outright pagans, as well.”
But isn’t this an argument from silence? Is there any positive evidence?
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Lane, so you find no distinction between NECM’s and pagans? If so, what would it consist of? More condemnation?
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Todd, what do you do with the passages that speak of only two groups of people, sheep/goats, wheat/tares? Are these just eschatological categoies and not historical ones?
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Yes, I looked at the proof-texts. All of those texts (except the Hebrews text) can be true for someone outside the visible church. Therefore I deduce that the phrase in question applies to hypocrites outside and inside the church.
With regard to the argument, isn’t it clinched anyway by the fact that WCF 10.4 says that they never come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved? See above for a positive argument.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:31 pm
No, I don’t think that there is no distinction between NECM’s and pagans. The former are part of the visible church, and the latter are not. The former have the preaching of the Word regularly given to them, while the latter do not. But on the ultimate scheme of things NECM’s have everything in common with pagans, and nothing in common with ECM’s.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:34 pm
“The former are part of the visible church, and the latter are not. The former have the preaching of the Word regularly given to them, while the latter do not.”
~Do you believe, Lane, that the rejection of these things brings about a greater condemnation for the NECM than that of the outright pagan?
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Sure.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:38 pm
“Todd, what do you do with the passages that speak of only two groups of people, sheep/goats, wheat/tares? Are these just eschatological categoies and not historical ones?”
No, I think I probably see those texts the same way you do.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:39 pm
It seems then to correlate that the NECM must have received “something” more than the pagan to recieve a greater condemnation than he does.
Would you say the common operations of the Spirit can or are meted out in differing (greater or lesser) measures, say within or outside the church?
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Todd, are you comfortable with the notion NECM’s recieve a measure of grace above that of the pagan yet below that of the elect?
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Yes, something more. However, it is not in the same class as what ECM’s receive. It is in the same class as what pagans receive.
I would agree that the common operations can be greater or lesser. I actually think that is implied in the “some” of WCF 10.4. I think greater or lesser can apply within or without the church.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Thanks Lane. That’s helpful to me. There seems to be a lot of latitude in your view w/o compromising the TR position.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Yes, I do not hold to “strict for strictness’s” sake TR, but rather TR as biblical.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Along those lines, and I’m not asking for names, but do you feel their are some TR’s who aren’t open towards reforming tradtional views of the Confession simply becuase they have elevated the Confession as it comes to us now as “above reproach”?
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I’m sure there are. But far fewer than the FV would suggest. Hey, we have a prescribed method of changing the WS. It’s in the BCO. We can do it if we wish. I would hazard a guess that right now is probably not a good time for anyone to try it, since the TR’s feel that true Reformation theology is under siege. The reaction to this siege is conservatism, of course.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I agree. We should not change out of fear, but conviction.
Doug Wilson has suggested on his blog that “prophets” are always received by the “establishment” the way the FV’s are being received by the TR’s. Any response?
Todd R. Harris said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:05 pm
How do you guys talk to your kids about their baptisms? Do you say, “You’ve been baptized into Christ!”?
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I’d be comfortable with that phraseology, Todd.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Todd, what about #47?
Todd R. Harris said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:14 pm
“Measure of grace” sounds a bit Roman for me. Grace as a substance, looking at the level in a measuring cup or something. But I’m probably being too picky. NECM has to be some third category within history.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Todd, where do you go to find support for this tersius quid ad gracium? hehe
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:20 pm
NECM’s are not a tertium quid. WCF 10 clearly states that such are not saved. Saved and not saved are the categories the WS use. NECM’s are the latter, *never* the former, and certainly not “in-between.”
David, I would say that most of the FV’ers are false prophets. Just because one is the “establishment” and the other isn’t doesn’t make one or the other right. But we are a confessional church in the PCA (recognizing, of course, that Wilson is not PCA, nor are many of the other FV’ers). We have the WS. We hold that the WS are a faithful rendering of Scripture’s teaching. That defines us over against every other Christian church that claims to be biblical, but doesn’t hold to the WS. It is how we are distinctive. That is one reason why I think that good-faith subscription is a terrible thing for us. We are saying that it is okay for us to mess with our own identity.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Yeah that, “tertium quid”. And to think I’m going to teach my children basic Latin one day. I’d better hit the books!
Todd R. Harris said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I guess the third category in my mind comes from the branch passages: Fruitful branches, frutiless branches, and not branches at all. Within history only.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Within history, the “fruitless” branches are parasitic “branches,” and not true branches ever.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:28 pm
But don’t the fruitless branches become the non-branches once they’re cut off? I think they’re one and the same, at different stages.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:30 pm
“NECM’s are not a tertium quid. WCF 10 clearly states that such are not saved.”
Right. No argument from me. “Never truly come to Christ” is very, very important to me. It’s part of why I consider myself “not FV.”
But in regard to the covenant, aren’t there three categories? Inward, permanent members; outward, temporary members; and complete strangers?
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Well, they definitely are one and the same thing at different stages. But I am not willing ever to call them true branches. They are parasites, or “sucker” branches, as I have said before. True fruit-bearing branches are the only true kind of branches, since true branches are *defined* by being fruit-bearing. If they don’t therefore bear fruit, then they are not true branches.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Todd, that depends on how you define the covenant. Is it only to the elect? Or to the elect and other non-elect members?
Todd R. Harris said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“Within history, the “fruitless” branches are parasitic “branches,” and not true branches ever.”
Sure. But you’re still left with three categories when viewing things from this perspective, within history: true branches, parasitic branches, and not branches at all.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Todd, I can go with 64 as long as it is clearly understood that “outward, temporary members” receive no saving benefits whatsoever. Hebrews 10:29, as I have argued, does not refer to “sanctification” (I might disagree with Dr. White here, and I am willing to hear his argument out more), but to something that is not of the ordo salutis. In other words, no NECM’s receive *any* ordo salutis benefits. They are never justified, sanctified, adopted, or anything.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Lane I agree, fruitless branches are just that simply because they never receive the fruit bearing grace present in fruit bearing branches.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Todd, if we define parasitic branches as “not branches” in a different stage, then they are still ultimately non-branches, aren’t they? It doesn’t matter where they are in that “scale,” they are at root (!) non-branches.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:36 pm
In other words, the category of “not saved” can be SUB-divided into those within the visible church and those without. But they are all still not saved, i.e., one category.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:36 pm
But the within-history perspective is important, too.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:38 pm
But that is precisely the perspective with which I am dealing, Todd.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:39 pm
The 1)Visible/2)Invisible church distintion seems to make room for three categories, historically speaking as well, if we include the 3)pagan with it.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:44 pm
This is why it would seem the sheep/goat, wheat/tare analogies appear to be eschatological categories. Not that they don’t exist presently, but that they will be clearly manifest in the eschaton. Meanwhile we are dealing with what I quoted from Calvin above, a “two-fold class of sons” within the church, and the heathen outside of it.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:44 pm
But the WS themselves place the NECM’s within the non-saved category, as is crystal clear from WCF 10.4. If I wasn’t dealing with the historical perspective, then I wouldn’t even be using the terms “within” and “without” with regard to the church, since in the eschaton, all the unsaved will be without.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Just as Abraham had two sons, one of the flesh and the one of promise within the family of God at the time, could we not adopt this for the Church today? Wherein we still find “sons of the flesh” within our ranks along side “sons of the promise” as well?
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:02 pm
The Ishmaelites among us take upon themselves the sign of the covenant and from man’s perspective participate outwardly, hypocritically (as far as we can see). But the Isaac’s of the covenant truly enjoy the benefits and blessings of covenant living in such a way Ishmael never can.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I have no problem with the way you have put it here. But I would not admit a third category.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:15 pm
But what of Ishmael? He isn’t of the promise. Yet he isn’t a gentile either. What else is he if not a thrid category?
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:18 pm
He is unsaved, and never was saved. If the categories are saved and unsaved, then it is clear which one Ishmael is.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:20 pm
By the way, this is the historical categories of the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, Augustine’s city of man and city of God. This is the proper historical perspective from the beginning of the Fall all the way until consummation. There are only two seeds.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I’m not disputing that. He was not “of faith”. He was unsaved. Yet he was Abraham’s son. He was the seed of Abraham according to the flesh (the covenant of God) in a way distinct from both Isaac (the seed of Abhaham according to the promise), and the gentile who was not of Abraham’s seed at all.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:27 pm
83 is for 81. I hadn’t seen 82
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:29 pm
This also goes back to my Calvin quote. He seems to recognize two “classes” i.e. categories within the church throughout history. And though they differ in nature, he refers to both a “children” and “sons” of God, if but for temporaily for those not of faith.
tim prussic said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Sheesh… lotta water under the bridge when one goes to lunch!
Sean (post 32) says, “I think Wilson’s attack on biblical individualism is quite pronounced and even pervasive in RINE (and on his blog and in his rag) and Robbins’ comparison to Lenin is apt.”
This is plain unfair… apt! I’ve read 10 times more of Wilson than it takes to know he’s not at war with “biblical individualism.” Lenin want to kill the conception of individuality and meld everyone into a mindless working blob with him at the helm and you call that an apt comparion to Wilson. It seems quite evident to me that you’re reading Wilson with an altered eye.
Wilson, so far as I can tell, is not against the biblical notions of individuals - and that’s SHOT THROUGH his writings. He’s against pushing an “individualism” that’s pushed so far as to exlcude covenantal unity, whether in Adam, the Last Adam, or the family. Frankly, so am I. One can err on either side, to be sure. However, I think that you’ve misread Wilson and I’m quite sure that Robbins (at this and many points) has, too.
David, great find (#26) and good ensuing discussion.
Todd (#54), I use that phraseology with my kids all the time. I tell them they’re Christians right along with Papa and Mommy, that Yahweh is our God and his Son, Jesus Christ, is our Savior. I tell them that since they belong, body and soul, in life and in death, to their faithful Savior, Jesus, that they’re called (right along with Papa and Mommy) to keep his commandments and serve him faithfully. I speak this way to them because I believe God promises such to them and that those promises are signified and sealed to them in their baptisms.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:30 pm
And I don’t dispute your point. My point is that the two seed persepective is more basic than the distinction within the covenant. The two seed perspective is more ultimate, and far deeper than the distinction within the covenant. And according to this far deeper distinction, Ishmael was of the seed of the serpent, as you said.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:34 pm
“The two seed perspective is more ultimate”
Yes, more eschatological. Ultimately, there are two classes sheep & goats, wheat and tares. Temporally we are dealing with three classes, sheep, goats and goats in sheep clothing. Baa!
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:46 pm
But even temporally, I am saying, the goats in sheep clothing are still goats, not shoats or geep.
tim prussic said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Geep! heh…
Is there not even a nominal difference between a baptized covenanted unbeliever and one outside the covenant? Of course there is and that’s exactly what Calvin was saying above. So, we must clearly distinguish what’s the same and what’s different and not write off all working and biblical distinctions in favor the the ultimate one.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I agree with that. Once a goat, always a goat. There’s NaaaY other way!
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I believe some goats find greener pastures in the Church for a season and try to imitate the sheep. But there is always a discernable difference to the Shepherd who truly knows His own sheep.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Tim, I am, of course, not writing off all distinctions between NECM’s and pagans. See comments 68 and 71.
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Good stuff Lane, thanks again.
tim prussic said,
May 31, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Yeah.. sorry. Was having a bit of trouble with the shorthand. What’s NECM and ECM and whatever else mean?
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 5:15 pm
NECM = Non Elect Covenant Member
ECM = Elect Covenant Member
tim prussic said,
May 31, 2007 at 5:16 pm
OK.. I think I’m better up to speed. Regarding #68, I agree. That is, I agree in the sense that individuals without faith never gain the personal saving benefits fo Christ. Those benes come to faith.
That said, can we speak of those merely external covenant members (w/o faith) as covenantally part of the regenerated, justified, sanctified and glorified people of God? In a covenantal sense, can we call them these things? Do you see my distinction?
David McCrory said,
May 31, 2007 at 5:16 pm
It’s funny the persistent use of “NECM” should in and of itself testify to some form of third category if ever there was one!
tim prussic said,
May 31, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Thanks, David. You’re a pal.
tim prussic said,
May 31, 2007 at 5:35 pm
It seems that Lane want to keep viewing thing in a two-fold way, which is certainly true ultimately. He seems to keep brushing over the distiction that the NECM is in the covenant in history, thus distinguishing him from the pagan and likening him the ECM. He has no faith like the pagan, but is sanctified in the covenant, like the ECM. In the eschaton, his judgment will be more, having trampled the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctifed, under foot. In that way, he’ll be under judgment like pagan, but even more so.
greenbaggins said,
May 31, 2007 at 5:46 pm
The way in which a NECM is like an ECM is not saving. Period. Tim, you are misunderstanding my position. I am not brushing over the distinction between NECM’s and pagan. But I am saying that the NECM is no better off, and in fact, is worse off than the pagan. A NECM is in the covenant externally, but not internally. If you agree with that, then we are on the same page. But I am not willing to say that a NECM is a member of the invisible church, nor am I willing to say that the NECM has any claim to ordo salutis benefits whatsoever.
Ron Jung said,
May 31, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Is there a temporary forgiveness? As a pastor I have baptized adult believers who have, after many years of “faithfulness” fallen away. Were their sins forgiven at the time of their repentance? And baptism? Were not the Ninivites forgiven for a time? I agree with 101 regarding the ordo salutis benefits, but that presupposes one is DE. Is there an ordo of damnation for the apostate that includes a ineffectual calling? Just asking.
tim prussic said,
May 31, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I read ya, Lane. I think I’m after how we treat/think of NECMs. I’m wondering if we can apply ordo salutis stuff to them, not in their persons, but because of the covenant they’re in along with converted elect folk. See #97 with regard to that.
A. Dollahite said,
May 31, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Lane,
Is it your position that someone within the FV has ever said that the NECM is a member of the invisible church?
Douglas Wilson said,
May 31, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Lane, sorry I got behind, and then couldn’t find your review of chapter five. Can you help me?
RBerman said,
May 31, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Good grief, I had a little internet trouble while writing, and suddenly there are thirty more posts! Anyway. One might even identify four categories:
1) Within both the visible church and the invisible church: Paul
2) Within the visible church but not the invisible church: Judas
3) Outside both the visible church and the invisible church: Julius Caesar
4) Outside the visible church but within the invisible church: The believing thief on the cross
In WCF terms, categories (1) and (4) are elect to salvation, and categories (2) and (3) are elect to damnation. Categories (1) and (2) respectively are faithful and unfaithful covenant members. There are lots of interesting debates that could be had about category (4) and whether this group includes Melchizedek, or Job, or elect but unbaptized stillborn babies from Christian families, etc. However, with respect to FV the debate focuses on category (2), and what it does and does not mean to be such a person with respect to God’s gaze, favor, and ontologic status.
With even finer distinctions and more axes, you could probably generate even more categories. But the heart of the issue, as several of you have said, is whether NECMs (category 2) have more in common with ECMs (category 1) or total pagans (category 3), as far as God is concerned.
anneivy said,
May 31, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Very neatly delineated, sir.
What I’d like to understand is why the FV focuses so much attention on (2).
(2) is, let’s face it, depressing as all git out. It’s where the self-deceived are. We’re praying and trusting we are not of their ilk, so why the fixation upon them?
Being in the (2) group not only doesn’t get you into eternal glory, it doesn’t even get you movie passes or free coffee. Well, unless the church is one that serves free coffee, but considering the increased condemnation that is part of the (2) package, I don’t think that would be an adequate trade-off.
Ron Jung said,
May 31, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Anneivy, #2 is the ultimate pastoral issue. What does baptism do? If one is baptized and confesses their sin, are they forgiven? Can one rely on the Word of God to assure them that they are forgiven? Or do folks just all need to go through the motions and wait until the Lord’s return to see if they were elected before creation? Why should we exhort our people to faithfulness if it really doesn’t matter?
Andy Gilman said,
May 31, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Way back in #17 Todd said:
[BOQ]
Andy, isn’t it true that in LC 167, *all* who are baptized are encouraged to draw strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized?
[EOQ]
Yes, but I’m not sure what that has to do with the pastor’s question regarding the interim committee’s statement about “union with Christ.” Are they going to say that being “baptized into Christ” is what the Larger Catechism means by being in “union with Christ?” Questions 64 - 69 clearly contradict such a claim.
Andy Gilman said,
May 31, 2007 at 8:59 pm
And in #21 Tim Prussic said:
[BOQ]
Andy, in what is union with Christ (in traditional jargon) based? Can we tell if anyone is actually united to Christ? Do we have to base our assessment of someone’s “in Christ” status completely on their fruit without anything more objective, like say, signs of the covenant?
[EOQ]
This is not about whether anyone “can tell if anyone is actually united to Christ.” It’s about whether the decretally elect, and they only, are “united to Christ” and enjoy all of the blessings of being “in Christ,” or whether all who are baptized are “united to Christ” and enjoy all the blessing of being “in Christ.” The Westminster Standards assert the former, the FV asserts the latter.
Ben G. said,
May 31, 2007 at 10:55 pm
ECMs, NECMs, NENCMs, and ENCMs – oh my!
“This is not about whether anyone ‘can tell if anyone is actually united to Christ.’ It’s about whether the decretally elect, and they only, are ‘united to Christ’ and enjoy all of the blessings of being ‘in Christ,’ or whether all who are baptized are ‘united to Christ’ and enjoy all the blessing of being ‘in Christ.’ The Westminster Standards assert the former, the FV asserts the latter.”
That seems to be the heart of most criticism of the FV. Is this true? Would those in the denomination who are associated with the FV actually affirm this latter statement?
Andrew Duggan said,
June 1, 2007 at 6:26 am
Re: 109,
I don’t think the FV would say all baptized enjoy all the blessings of being in Christ, but rather, some baptized don’t persevere, but even those who don’t, while being in Christ, as long as they remain in covenant still enjoy the other benefits of being in Him. Neither do I think they don’t even all agree there, I think some FV would rather say “… still enjoy some of the other benefits …”, instead of just “… the other benefits …”.
Since I’m not by any means FV, I’m sure I’ve misunderstood them
Todd R. Harris said,
June 1, 2007 at 6:42 am
“What I’d like to understand is why the FV focuses so much attention on (2).”
Because that’s what the debate is about, right?
Andy Gilman said,
June 1, 2007 at 8:28 am
Re: #110
For the FV, perseverence is not a blessing of being in Christ. Perseverence is the means by which God’s ordination to eternal life is accomplished. God has ordained that some of those who are “united to Christ,” and who “enjoy all the blessings of being “in Christ” will persevere. These are the decreedally elect. God has ordained that others who are “united to Christ” and who “enjoy all the blessing of being “in Christ” will FAIL to persevere. These are the apostates.
RBerman said,
June 1, 2007 at 8:46 am
#109: “Would those in the denomination who are associated with the FV actually affirm this latter statement?”
FVers deny that category (2) people persevere. Some would debate whether perseverance is a distinct blessing, as opposed to being the continuation of the actual blessings. Rich Lusk speaks of “undifferentiated grace” shared by NECMs and ECMs, but he’s not in the PCA. I’d love to hear a PCA FV advocate address this specific topic, because it seems close to the heart of my concern.
anneivy said,
June 1, 2007 at 8:56 am
From #112: “God has ordained that some of those who are “united to Christ,” and who “enjoy all the blessings of being “in Christ” will persevere. These are the decreedally elect. God has ordained that others who are “united to Christ” and who “enjoy all the blessing of being “in Christ” will FAIL to persevere. These are the apostates.”
Also neatly put, and shines a spotlight on how the FV removes assurance from being in Christ. Being “in Christ” is not necessarily a good thing in the FV economy, since there is no assurance the LORD has ordained that one will persevere. This is a distinct and radical break with traditional Reformed doctrine, is it not?
Todd said,
June 1, 2007 at 9:09 am
In John 15 and Romans 11, is “being in Christ” necessarily a good thing, or is it the background for warnings about continuing in the faith and the possibility of falling away?
anneivy said,
June 1, 2007 at 9:27 am
You’ve ignored the point of my comment, which was the last sentence. Clearly there are several variations of Christian theology which have people being “in Christ” yet still winding up in hell. That’s not under dispute.
However, traditional Reformed theology has been firm that “being in Christ” guarantees one a place in glory, so is always a good thing.
Saying otherwise isn’t new, just not Reformed.
greenbaggins said,
June 1, 2007 at 9:34 am
Doug, I am happy to help you out, here. My review of chapter 5 of RINE is the first link in the post above.
Todd said,
June 1, 2007 at 10:25 am
“However, traditional Reformed theology has been firm that “being in Christ” guarantees one a place in glory, so is always a good thing.”
But I’m asking about how the language of being in Christ is actually used in the Bible.
anneivy said,
June 1, 2007 at 10:33 am
I am aware of what you’re asking, but that would be hopping down a bunny trail, since the issue isn’t whether or not there are differing interpretations of verses and passages in the Bible, but whether or not the FV’s interpretation aligns with Reformed theology.
Not facing up to the Westminsterian invisible church at Mark Horne said,
June 1, 2007 at 10:34 am
[...] A commenter writes: One might even identify four categories: [...]
David McCrory said,
June 1, 2007 at 10:48 am
“In John 15 and Romans 11, is “being in Christ” necessarily a good thing, or is it the background for warnings about continuing in the faith and the possibility of falling away?”
~ Yes.
Todd said,
June 1, 2007 at 11:06 am
David, now we’re talking. Great answer.
“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.”
David McCrory said,
June 1, 2007 at 11:08 am
And we only continue in His kindness as He grants us the grace of faith to do so.
Sola Deo Gloria!
Todd said,
June 1, 2007 at 11:12 am
Soli. Dative singular, third declension.
Todd said,
June 1, 2007 at 11:13 am
And in this passage, perseverance is a command/warning rather than a promise. In other passages, it’s a promise.
David McCrory said,
June 1, 2007 at 11:18 am
I think we if don’t understand perseverance as part of our sanctification (a synergistic process) we’ll tend to neglect our duties towards the means of grace which strengthen our faith and therefore our heed to the warnings.
tim prussic said,
June 1, 2007 at 11:31 am
Andy’s post (#112) seem to me way to organized or curt to reflect FV thought. That said, I’ve heard and read Schlissel, for instance, saying things that sound like that. But what Andy’s posted is a very simplistic ANALYSIS of the FV position, which puts all FV folk in such a light as to be easily dismissed as basically semi-Pelagian, or just non-Reformed, as we see going on above. Basically, it seems like a tactic (which has proven quite effective), but I don’t think it’s the best representation of all the variations in FV thinking.
The fact is that there’s been plenty of discussion about the distinctions involved in covenant - evidence by that quote from Calvin above. Our discussion should continue along Calvin’s lines, I think, not Andy’s.
I agree with David and Todd (#s 120 & 121). And I affirm that perservernce is of grace - not of works lets any should boast. I do think that it, and fruit, help us distinguish NECMs and ECMs from each other in history.
David McCrory said,
June 1, 2007 at 11:37 am
Tim, I’d suggest the ablity to produce truly good works (fruit) IS the distinguishing mark between those who posess faith as opposed to those who merely profess faith.
David McCrory said,
June 1, 2007 at 11:45 am
The posession and nature of true saving faith is what this whole debate is really centered around.
Is temporary faith as demonstrated in the NECM of a different nature altogether from saving faith? Calvin would seem to say yes, in remarking that saving faith comes from the same springs as election.
greenbaggins said,
June 1, 2007 at 11:58 am
Tim, would you agree that the ordo salutis separates the NECM from the ECM (i.e., the latter have it and the former do not)?
Mrs. Beth Ellen Nagle said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Gentlemen and ladies,
I have really enjoyed this current exchange. I have been reading FV related material (pro and con) for well over a year and being a layperson trying to make sense of things I have gone through whole gamut of emotions and confusion. One thing that has been most difficult is that given all the present critique of the FV from scholarly men you find the response generally being that the position is not being understood. I have seen thing on going in several key topics.
I have tried to be open to there perhaps being a sense of building on the Confession in a deeper way but for all my studies and reflection I stand unconvinced that it is a better way. This not to say I don’t think the Confession cannot be built upon in a richer, deeper way. I personally think that the biggest mistake being made by the FV proponents is the disdain for the “logos” in the understanding of both General and Special revelation. If reason is disparaged, why hold to systematics and “good and necessary consequences”? I am equally perplexed why reason (Logos) gets mixed with “rationalism” or “enlightenment”. They are not the same. Straw Man.
As for the 3rd category (which are goats at the root), I think they stand in greater judgment due to being given more light just as those outside the church more or less of light historically. So, the NECM are in the greater light in the continuum. ?
This is my first post and I have so many questions I don’t even know where to begin and so I will begin with this.
Lane, I love your blog.
Mrs. Beth Ellen Nagle
Mrs. Beth Ellen Nagle said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Pardon my typos. I read it twice.
Lane, you need the plug-in that allows readers to come back and edit within a certain time frame. 
David McCrory said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Lane, I think true faith grants the believer access to all the blessings and benefits of Christ, while nothing else does. This true faith is grounded in God’s electing grace and therefore does not proceed to anyone other than the decretally elect. I think Satan is an Angel of Light promoting a faith (temporary, unsaving, etc.) that has a form of godliness but lacks the power thereof. This false faith posessed by those who “join” (from man’s perspective) Christ’s church appears to have many of the same qualities as true faith. It is our limited (and fallen) abilities which prevent the people of God from always rightly discern false faith from true faith.
This debate hinges on your understanding of the nature and posession of faith.
greenbaggins said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I would like nothing better, Beth. However, the way this blog is set up, it is not quite that flexible. In fact, I cannot use any plug-ins with wordpress.com. That feature is only available with a wordpress.org blog, which I do not have. Welcome to my blog, by the way. How did you come to my blog?
You have certainly put your finger on a vitally important point, and one that has been hammered quite a bit by the critics. “Good and necessary consequence” is not the favorite method of FV guys. NECM’s are fundamentally goats, not geep. I agree.
tim prussic said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Lane, I do agree that the ordo is only personally acquired by the elect. However, I think (work in progress here, folks) that ordo designations can be coventally applied to all in the covenant, but received only by the eternally elect.
Mrs. Nagle, some FV proponents’ disdain for logic (good and necessary consequence AND induction [like, say, Charles Hodge's method]) is disturbing. However, I don’t think it’s wide spread. I’ve found it in Schlissel (his notion that the Bible has rough edges and all). But I’ve found most FV guys willing to systematize and rationally work through theological statements.
By the by, the notion that logos MEANS logic is quite truncated and doesn’t grasp the breadth and color of that work employed in the Bible. I’m not saying that you hold such, but I know that the position’s been held.
Anne Ivy said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Re: #127
“…what Andy’s posted is a very simplistic ANALYSIS of the FV position, which puts all FV folk in such a light as to be easily dismissed as basically semi-Pelagian, or just non-Reformed, as we see going on above. Basically, it seems like a tactic (which has proven quite effective), but I don’t think it’s the best representation of all the variations in FV thinking.”
I don’t know about anyone else, Tim, but I’d be all ears (okay, eyes) to hear (well, read) a decent - never mind “best” - representation of all the variations in FV thinking.
Heck, a decent representation, i.e. one which has the approval of FV sympathizers/supporters, of just the *primary* variations in FV thinking would tickle me positively pink.
Would you be so kind? It’d be tremendously helpful, ISTM.
Mare-see boo-koo!
Mrs. Beth Ellen Nagle said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Oh I see. I did not realize that.
How did I come by your blog? I honestly don’t quite remember! It was likely through doing a Google search on the topic of FV or the like.
David McCrory said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:23 pm
“However, I think (work in progress here, folks) that ordo designations can be coventally applied to all in the covenant”
~ Tim how can regeneration (an ordo designation) be applied (”applied” meaning to “put to work”
to all in the covenant, if all in covenant have not received the grace of saving faith by which the work of regeneration is obtained?
greenbaggins said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Anne, have you read _The Federal Vision_, edited by Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner? It is published by Athanasius Press. It consists entirely of FV articles.
Tim, does “covenantal possession” mean real possession or not of the ordo salutis? This is the whole question. Saying “covenantal” seems a bit vague to me. I appreciate the fact that you reserve personal possession of the ordo to the elect only. So, when Steve Wilkins says that NECM’s receive *real* benefits, such as justification, sanctification, adoption, what do you think he means?
tim prussic said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm
First off, I don’t know what ISTM means… I suffer from a condition of ignince of eBrevs. That should be clear from my posts above!
Further conditions from which I suffer: Can’t speak for all FV anymore than I can speak for my denom or even my local body. The FV is a movement (maybe) or certainly (as Pastor Jordan insists) a discussion. When someone says, “The FV says…,” I’m always a good bit leary. The best, clearest, most vocal, and clearly the most delightful propoent on the FV side of things is, or course, Pastor Wilson. Reading though his blog will very quickly show that Andy’s simplistic, though elegant, analysis doens’t fit. So, while I’d love to tickle ANYONE positively pink, I just can’t do it - certainly not publically.
However, you can clearly see from the discussion on this single string that the issues are as simply stated as “the FV saith….”
Mrs. Beth Ellen Nagle said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Tim,
I am not sure I track your concern here? Feel free to clarify.
David McCrory said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Lane, oddly enough I think it’s important to note that by “real” you mean eternally electing. It would seem some would say NECM’s receive “real” benefits, but that their temporary rather than eternal.
tim prussic said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:37 pm
See, I don’t know what Wilkins means. If he means that, while a NECM is a part of the covenent, there’s NO functional difference ‘twixt him and an ECM, I have to disagree. What I’m talking about is the way we consider folks. In other words, I can’t tell if the brother worshipping next to me is eternally elect or not, but I can know he’s baptized and is not living in scandal. Based up on God’s covenant, administed to the guy next to me via a visible sign and seal, I count him one of the elect, justified, sanctified… people of God. I think the Bible speaks in those general covenantal categories, not just in decretal and invisible categories. That’s what I mean by “covental posession.” Does that help, Lane?
David McCrory said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Tim, have you read my #138?
tim prussic said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Mrs. Nagle, which concern? hehe
The definition of logos as logic, or the FV’s use of logic?
Andy Gilman said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Re #118:
Todd, do you place your skills at biblical exegesis above, for example, the Westminster divines? Isn’t one reason we subscribe to secondary standards because we recognize that “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves…?” If you are going to challenge the secondary standards, then you should first be well versed in the way these verses were exegeted by our reformed forebears, and you should explain how they came to mistaken conclusions regarding “union with Christ.”
Such a challenge can’t be waged in the blogosphere, via Canon and Athanasius Presses, or via a few “pastor’s conferences.” It needs to involve the entire confessing denomination. The FV has stood up, with Bible in hand, and challenged the confessional statements of the reformed churches. But unlike Calvin and Luther, it hasn’t even bothered to first try to “reform” the denominations in which it resides, or to seek a written revision of the confessional standards.
The FV will claim to uphold the confessional standards, until it is shown they are out of accord with them, and then they will say “but what does the bible say” and “we’re just using biblical language.” They want it both ways.
I wonder how many PCA pastors, let alone the average laymen, would be prepared to sit across the table with Pope Benedict and engage him in point by point biblical exegesis, regarding “justification by faith?” I have alot more confidence in the reformed giants who have gone before us, than I do my own ability to exegete the scriptures, especially when it comes to difficult passages. If you can first give a detailed explanation of how the Westminster divines handled the passages in question, and then show where they went wrong in arriving at their conclusion that only the decretally elect are in “union with Christ,” you would have a stronger case. Next, you should work on revising the confessional standards, by getting the learned men in various denominations to grasp your biblical insights.
tim prussic said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:41 pm
David, regeneration is not obtained by faith. Faith flows from regeneration. I suppose that’s not the central question, however. I think that the ordo can be nominally applied to NECM, but is only received by the elect.
David McCrory said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:42 pm
“What I’m talking about is the way we consider folks. In other words, I can’t tell if the brother worshipping next to me is eternally elect or not, but I can know he’s baptized and is not living in scandal. Based up on God’s covenant, administed to the guy next to me via a visible sign and seal, I count him one of the elect, justified, sanctified… people of God”
~ Tim, this is called a judgment of charity. We grant professing Christians are what they say, unless and or until they demonstrate otherwise. The question of whether any one individual posseses saving faith (since false faith can look very similiar) is one that may go one concealed for some time.
Mrs. Beth Ellen Nagle said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Tim,
Logos as logic.
No hurry as you have much discussion going on.
David McCrory said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Right Tim, I agree with #147. Regenration preceeds faith.
David McCrory said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:45 pm
“I think that the ordo can be nominally applied to NECM, but is only received by the elect.”
~ Tim, what is your difference between “applying” the ordo to NECM’s and it being “received” by the ECM?
tim prussic said,
June 1, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Mrs. Nagle, sure! I think that John Robbins has followed Gordon Clark in defining logos (specifically in John 1) as logic. That’s a very limited defintion of a word that has quite a vast and profound array of meaning. I know that Greg Bahnsen wrote an essay in opposition of logos = logic. Also, just take 30 mins, a cu