Reply to Wilson, the sequel
June 6, 2007 at 10:09 am (Federal Vision)
Okay, that’s a hokey title for a blog post about theology, but I didn’t want to duplicate titles with previous posts.
So, Wilson rejects the law/gospel distinction as a hermeneutic for the interpretation of Scripture, but not as an application of Scripture to believers. One might wonder how the application of Scripture can be thus distanced from interpretation. If the application of the law/gospel distinction is legitimate in a Christian’s life, what prevents the law/gospel interpretation according to such categories? I’m not sure that application is that distinct from interpretation. If a particular passage has application according to law and gospel, then are we not interpreting the text such that it will apply in such a way? I will leave the last word for Doug on this one.
I am very happy to see Wilson’s affirmation of the place of ST within exegesis. I think we are on the same page here. I am also glad to see that we agree on the matter of progression/regression in the church. And I think we further agree on the issue of how a person is defined, since I would certainly not wish to confine the definition of a person to internal things. External things also have a bearing. So, there is much of his post there on which we can agree.
On the egg/omelette analogy, I am happy to see Wilson acknowledging the limitation of the analogy. As I (and Wes White) acknowledged before, I believe Wilson to be orthodox on the visible/invisible church distinction. However, I must still press the analogy a bit. It seems to me that the point Wilson was making had to do with individualism in relation to corporate within the church. If Doug is willing to say that, in terms of the invisible church, reprobate eggs are not part of the omelette, then I am just fine with the illustration. The corporate omelette, considered in terms of the visible church, has good eggs and bad eggs. The corporate omelette, considered in terms of the invisible church, has only good eggs in it.
I would very much like to see Doug respond to the Post-Reformation tradition issues, about which Joel Garver has made it clear that his views have shifted. Of course, Joel’s views shifted either after RINE was written, or during. So we cannot suppose Wilson to have been purposely misusing Joel’s old scholarship to make his point. However, Muller and Garver are both currently differing from Wilson’s assessment of the Post-Reformation tradition. Maybe Wilson has shifted as well. But I would certainly like to see Wilson’s current take on the matter.
Ben G. said,
June 6, 2007 at 3:05 pm
It doesn’t seem to me that Pastor Wilson is “distancing” application and interpretation so much as raising questions about how the two are related.
Are we talking here about what we do with the text or about what God does to us through the text? If the former, then it makes sense to talk about “application” as what we do practically with our interpretation. If the latter, though, doesn’t God’s “applying” of the text to us shape our interpretation? That is to say, God’s application of a command to an unregenerate person is a death sentence, but the same command to the regenerate is sweeter than honey.
So what does it mean to use the law/gospel distinction as a hermeneutic? My impression is that Pastor Wilson sees such a practice as categorizing any given text as one or the other, then interpreting from there. Do you see it that way?
greenbaggins said,
June 7, 2007 at 10:09 am
Ben, the difficulty I see with Wilson’s position is that I don’t see that a law/gospel application can come from a non-law/gospel interpretation. How can one split the application into law and gospel without the interpretation also doing the same? I fully realize that Wilson is talking about application, and how it relates to exegesis. It is the same question I am raising here. To me, Wilson’s example of how John 3:16, e.g., is law is rather strained imo. The passage is Gospel. And the passage “Do this and live” is straight law. It does not imply the doability of the law, imo. And this is the standard Reformed exegesis of those passages for centuries.
jared said,
June 7, 2007 at 11:28 am
greenbaggins,
Doesn’t “whosoever believeth in Him” pretty much mean the same thing as “do this and live”? They both contain an imperative, one implicit and the other explicit; actually they’re both explicit if you think about it. Not only this but both imperatives are Gospel for the believer (who “shall not perish” and will “live”
and Law for the non-believer (who “stands condemned already” and will not “live”).
greenbaggins said,
June 7, 2007 at 11:30 am
Not if you distinguish between faith and works. And further, the form of the verb there is not an imperative.
jared said,
June 7, 2007 at 12:41 pm
How does that make a difference? As Christians nothing we do constitutes a “work” in any sort of salvific sense. Also, how is it relevant that John 3:16 isn’t grammatically an imperative? Are you saying that the most famous evangelistic verse isn’t, at least implicitly, a “call” to believe?
RBerman said,
June 7, 2007 at 12:54 pm
John 3:16 does not imply causality, as in “you will live because you believe.” Rather, it identifies the set of people who will believe as the set of people who will also have eternal life. Now, Scripture does often speak about the human experience of salvation in terms of things that we can do. Thus in Acts 2:37, the crowd asks Peter, “What must we do?” and he tells them to repent and be baptized. But they had already been “cut to the heart.” They already believed Peter and wanted to know what sort of lifestyle should follow from their newfound faith. And that’s a reasonable way to talk about things from the human side, because we don’t have direct access to God’s decree to see which names, including our own, are in the Book of Life. We have to come at it indirectly, through evidences. A jeweler who tries to scratch a diamond isn’t making the gem into a diamond. But there’s something he can do to evidence whether it’s really a diamond, and thus whether it should be declared a diamond.
jared said,
June 7, 2007 at 1:20 pm
RBerman,
I think 3:14-18 does imply causality: without belief there is no life, thus, whosoever believes also has, as per verse 16. To one who already believes this passage is good news, but to the one who doesn’t believe it is bad news. I think this is what Wilson means when he says law/gospel “application” rather than “hermeneutic” (or, in his most recent post, the distinction between one who is a “law-hearer” and one who is a “grace-hearer”). Other than this, I agree with what you say.
RBerman said,
June 7, 2007 at 2:59 pm
“Without belief there is no life” is similar to “without works there is no faith.” Both are true statements that imply no causal relationship between the two elements. As far as the common causality of them both, I look a few verses back at “unless you are born again, you cannot see the kingdom of God.” Regeneration causes belief, and life, and the ability to perceive God’s kingdom.
Ben G. said,
June 7, 2007 at 3:48 pm
It’s hard not to cross-reference 3:16 with 6:28-9, here:
“‘What must we do,’” asks the crowd to Jesus, “‘to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’”
I have yet to see anyone deny a monergistic understanding of salvation in this debate. Though repentance and faith be gifts from God, you must repent and believe in order to be saved, right?
RBerman said,
June 7, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Right. We just have to be careful how we talk about it, because Semi-Pelagianism comes so easy to us, both in practice and theory. Similarly when talking about law and gospel, because depending on what one means, the law is either opposed to the gospel (as the terms are used in Galatians for instance), or the law is very dear to the gospel (as shown in Matthew 5 for instance).
Ben G. said,
June 7, 2007 at 4:33 pm
On that note, should the Sermon on the Mount be categorized as Law or Gospel?
Chris said,
June 8, 2007 at 3:02 pm
It is amazing to watch Joel Garver use a scholarship and accuracy to point out the fallacies of the Report:
http://sacradoctrina.blogspot.com/2007/06/pca-report-on-nppfv-some-concerns-5.html#links
How is it that so many of you anti-FV guys and get behind this document and support it, yet have absolutely no reply to someone like Garver is beyond me. I realize this isn’t the only site to handle this, but many of you (anti-FV types) who read this blog ignore true scholarship and can’t respond to it and then turn to weaker targets and attack. To all who read this, where is your response to Garver? I am fully aware that Garver isn’t on either side of this debate, but to ignore his concerns about the Report and have no response–shame on you anti-FV guys.
Chris
David Gadbois said,
June 8, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Chris, you are just embarrassing yourself by making such a statement, when every single point brought up in the link you posted has been discussed here on this blog before. Garver is just another person in the parade of criticism of the Report. There is nothing new here, so we can just direct you to this series of posts Lane made in response to Jeff Meyers: http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/reply-to-jeff-meyers/
If there is a specific point Lane missed (or that we missed in the HUNDREDS of comments) I’m sure that we’d be glad to help fill in the gaps if you have a specific question you feel is unanswered.
Chris said,
June 8, 2007 at 3:41 pm
David,
That’s disappointing. Sad.
rich said,
June 8, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Quoting from Jared:
Doesn’t “whosoever believeth in Him” pretty much mean the same thing as “do this and live”? They both contain an imperative, one implicit and the other explicit; actually they’re both explicit if you think about it. Not only this but both imperatives are Gospel for the believer (who “shall not perish” and will “live”) and Law for the non-believer (who “stands condemned already” and will not “live”).
These statements imply an amazing lack of either comprehension or interaction with the text of Galatians. It is not merely the Reformers who categorize this verse as Law, but Paul himself. Obviously, this doesn’t mean that every scriptural imperative with rewards ought to be categorized as strict Law. However, an application with no exegetical basis is a bad application.
Chris, I am not against the FV at all, but you are being ridiculous. This blog has been almost solely devoted to each point of Jeff Meyers more complete list of objections to the report. Apparently, he should address each and every person with objections to the FV report and do so publicly for you to be satsfied. How much time do you think he has?
David Gadbois said,
June 8, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Well then, Chris, surely you could easily point out for us something in specific? Spare us the emotive cop-out .
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
June 8, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Chris,
You’re right! Garver shredded the report to pieces! I mean, no one here has the !@##$ to take him on. More than that, none of the anti-FV and anti-NPP guys in the who denomination have interacted with him at all. This paper, I pray, will crash and burn next week at GA like a gasoline saturated paper airplane headed for a campfire!
David Gadbois said,
June 8, 2007 at 7:50 pm
“I mean, no one here has the !@##$ to take him on.”
Um, did I just walk into a third grade classroom? If you guys want to discuss one of Garver’s points in specific, I’m sure Lane, I, and others here would be happy to do so. But just throwing out a link and telling us it destroys our argument, and doing a childish victory dance like this isn’t very helpful, and if you guys have been following along here you’d know that most of Garver’s points are essentially the same as the Jeff Myers points that have already been address here - at some length- on this blog.
And you guys chide us for failing to debate the issues?
greenbaggins said,
June 9, 2007 at 8:41 am
Matthew and Chris, I would be happy to examine Joel Garver’s position. However, I am already gone for GA, and have no time to do so. Joel’s critique has appeared too late to be of much impact. I would, however, be happy to answer whatever of Joel’s report you think is distinct from Meyers’s report. I respect Joel Garver quite a bit, and you could look forward to irenic and substantive interaction. My blogging will be quite spotty in the next week. However, I will look in from time to time. If you could point to what you think are Joel’s strongest arguments, then I will do my best.
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
June 9, 2007 at 5:31 pm
You guys are comical: “Joel’s critique has appeared too late to be of much impact. ” Says who?
Jon said,
June 9, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Matthew,
Why do you assume that Joel Garver will have an impact? How many attending GA actually frequent his blog? I suspect his impact will be on those already predisposed to agree with him. I’m going to go out on a limb, but I suspect that no one who frequents pro and anti-FV blogs are being converted at this point, your substantive interaction notwithstanding.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 10, 2007 at 9:31 am
Wilson, right on cue, has relegated the ‘Open Letter’ people at Humble Opinion to the dung heap in the swine pen, along side both the study committees of the OPC and the PCA. They are piled on top of the equally out-to lunch opinions of the faculties of Westminster seminary Calif., Knox seminary and Mid-America Reformed seminary- all of whom are motivated not by any legitimate theological concerns,but only driven by envious political motives. He futher urges the faithful FVers to pray they the TR bozos in the PCA will face total humiliation in their attempt to hi-jack the denomination into adopting the SCR, which would actually require PCA ministers to really stand by their ordainational vows and not play word games. Here is a thought-why don’t all the FV folk go join Wilson in the CREC? Then you guys can play fast and loose all you want will the WS.
at Mark Horne said,
June 10, 2007 at 10:58 pm
[...] This sounds like the sort of polarized rhetoric someone uses when they think so highly of themselves and their favorites that any word against them counts as blasphemy. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
Jared said,
June 10, 2007 at 11:08 pm
rich,
Which verse are you talking about?
Jared said,
June 10, 2007 at 11:34 pm
G.L.W. Johnson,
Who, besides Alan Strange (and even he, apparently, doesn’t have time to really “get into it”), has approached Wilson or even given him the time of day about this whole FV mess as far as he is involved in it? Put yourself in Wilson’s shoes for a moment:
Anti-FV Paper1: Wilson, you believe “this” about “these” things and we aren’t going to stand by and let you corrupt our churches anymore!
Wilson: Actually, sirs, I believe this about “these” things which, as it turns out, is exactly what you believe.
Anti-FV Paper2: No, Wilson, Paper1 wasn’t precisely right, but you do believe “this” about those things don’t you?
Wilson: Well, you see, I already told Paper1 what I believe about those things and you’ve just sort of re-worded what he got wrong. So, once again, I believe this about those things, okay?
Anti-FV Paper3: Nonsense! You believe “THIS” about those things, and we know it!
Wilson: *sigh* Look, putting what Paper1 and Paper2 have said in all caps isn’t really helping matters. If you seven other Papers don’t have anything different to say, can I go home? Here’s my contact info when you can come up with something a little less repetitive that I haven’t addressed.
Now I’m not saying that the anti-FV papers don’t have any good points because I think there are definitely legitimate concerns (like what “union in Christ” means/implies about members of the visible church), but when Wilson has come out and addressed specific issues (e.g. his response to the MARS report) and the critics are still getting on to him and saying he believes things that he, in fact, doesn’t believe; well, I think some of his responses are a teensy bit justified.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 11, 2007 at 7:37 am
Jared
As Wilson himself can affirm, I made repeated appeals directly to him soon after the Auburn Ave fiasco errupted- and I got ignored. Doug would not address a single one of the concerns that I raised. Since we had worked together on the book’Whatever Happened to the Reformation?’ and our Christian school was a charter member of Wilson’s Classical Christian Schools Assoc, and we sent out faculty every Summer up to Moscow for training, and we had had Doug and his wife Nancy speak in our Church, I labored under the misguided impression that Doug considered me a friend and would go out of his way to address this concerns. Was I ever wrong. My first three letters Doug had his assistant respond, telling me Doug was really busy and this was simply a big misunderstanding….on my part. I gave Doug ample opportunity to deal with my concerns privately, and when he refused to do , I felt no constrains about airing my growing concerns publicly, which I will continue to do.
Chris Hutchinson said,
June 11, 2007 at 7:40 am
Matthew,
And yet Joel Garver clearly called the Report a “Good Faith Subscription” document, when your open letter called the Report an attempt to sneak strict subscription into the PCA.
And you don’t have the @$%#& to withdraw your obviously false and political assertion. At best, the Report feels to you like it too narrowly interprets the Standards, but that is way different than being a “strict subscription” document, at least according to Garver.
So, please spare us the outrage of who has @#%$ or not…..
Sigh….
Chris H.
anneivy said,
June 11, 2007 at 8:19 am
Mr. Johnson, you were blown off with an assistant?
Under the circumstances as described, I’d certainly have expected you to have heard from DW swiftly and personally.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 11, 2007 at 9:25 am
Anne
Well, that one way to put it. Mike Lawyer is Wilson ’s asst. He was polite , but not the least bit helpful when it came to asnwering my questions about the FV. By the way, did you get the email I sent you? I told you I liked your spunk!
anneivy said,
June 11, 2007 at 9:37 am
I don’t think I did! Darn spam filter. Spunk, eh?
I like it. >;^>
Thanks ever so. ;^)
anneivy said,
June 11, 2007 at 9:40 am
BTW, by using the term “blown off” I meant no disparagement toward Mr. Lawyer, simply that since you actually KNOW Pastor Wilson, having worked on a project together and having him speak at your church, it’s strange he neglected to contact you personally.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 11, 2007 at 9:46 am
Anne
This was the reason for my telling Wilson he could go pound sand in a rabbit hole in response to him challenging me to a public debate, or as Paul Harvey would say, ‘Now you know the rest of the story.’
Matt said,
June 11, 2007 at 9:49 am
Found to be unconstitutional according to BCO –the approach of a lawyer:
http://necdumvidemus.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fv-memo-final.pdf
jared said,
June 11, 2007 at 9:51 am
G.L.W. Johnson,
Have you tried recently? I’m not one to make excuses for others and I, obviously, didn’t know you had made an effort a few years back when all of this originally started. However, I’ve been keeping up with Wilson’s blog for the better part of two years now and I can’t ever recall you posting comments on any of the “Auburn Avenue Stuff” entries. Just a couple months ago he talks favorably about your chapter in By Faith Alone (’I Know My Baptists’ is the name of that entry) and a few entries prior he asks again for public debate listing you among those who want to debate everywhere but on his own front doorstep (’Still No Debate’ is the title of that entry).
I think part of the problem is that everyone is treating FV like it’s a system of theology when, clearly, it is not. While there may be people who consider themselves FV advocates that are outside the ‘bounds’ of the Westminster Standards, it is not helpful to sweep the entire movement under the rug of heterodoxy as all of the anti-FV reports seem to be doing.
Tim Wilder said,
June 11, 2007 at 10:01 am
Re: 33
An interesting document, but perhaps not in the way intended.
The author, Jordan Mark Siverd, turns out to be a fan of the Reformed Catholicism Crowd, ( http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/ ) which overlaps the left fringe of the FV. Also he is a member of the liberal Redeemer Presbyterian Church, in New Orleans, where the pastor is one of the supposedly objective “non-FV men” who opposed the adoption of the Committee Report. Curiouser and curiouser.
Chris said,
June 11, 2007 at 10:48 am
of the liberal Redeemer…? Get serious! What does that have to do with his scholarship? Is that how you respond to his work? Trying to cover over his scholarship with associations? Weak.
Tim Wilder said,
June 11, 2007 at 10:56 am
Re: 36
It is interesting that the FV crowd, who so long trumpeted their Vantillianism, now claim that their presuppositions are irrelevant to their evaluating their commitments.
anneivy said,
June 11, 2007 at 11:46 am
“…part of the problem is that everyone is treating FV like it’s a system of theology when, clearly, it is not.”
Then I don’t see the point in the constant, incessant call for debate, if it would pit a defender of an actual theological system against a defender of a diaphanous, vague “movement” about which no two people agree, apparently.
No matter who was appointed (and who would make such an appointment, anyway?) to represent the “FV movement”, there would be FV’ers squawking how *they* don’t think that way, so the debate’s not representative.
Mercy Maud. Talk about Whack-a-Mole theology. =8^o
Mrs. Beth Ellen Nagle said,
June 11, 2007 at 11:53 am
Very pithy observation.
jared said,
June 11, 2007 at 12:40 pm
anneivy,
That’s the nature of theology no matter its guise; it’s not because of the field itself, rather it’s the human element. As to the call for debate, this is a slippery situation we (the Reformed community) have found ourselves in where the FV is concerned. The reports are, as I’ve mentioned, sweeping all FV advocates under the same heretical rug and now some of them (namely Wilson) are poking out and saying “Wait a minute now, you can’t sweep me under this rug because 95% of what you’re saying I believe is not what I actually believe!” Thus, the call for debate is not (and cannot be) on the scale of “system” versus system;” it has to be on an individual level.
Not only this, but many in the anti-FV crowd are unwilling to even call FV advocates fellow brothers (or laborers) in Christ, i.e. they are being uncharitable, and this is plainly wrong. I don’t think Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, etc. are within the bounds of the Westminster Standards either but we aren’t calling them unregenerates in need of God’s grace. If we can extend the hand of fellowship to them (e.g. we let them partake of the Lord’s Table in our services), why not to those who are even more theologically aligned with us than they are?
anneivy said,
June 11, 2007 at 1:01 pm
What you say is doubtless true, Jared (BTW, it’s just ‘Anne’…’Ivy’ is my last name, and I wish I’d made my moniker different than it is), but it doesn’t change the fact it’s an untenable situation due to the FV-supporters meeting together and hanging together (online) regularly, then splitting apart like slapped mercury when it suits them.
If the “movement” (and I prefer that term over the lame “conversation” nonsense, which is just so darned Brian McClarenish) is coherent enough to hold get-togethers and have its members recognize each other, then it ought to be capable of agreeing on at least the major points.
So far, though, this isn’t even close to what happens.
I agree with you about the “brothers in Christ” point; ISTM if the FV puts someone outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy, then for the life of me I don’t see how the same wouldn’t apply to Arminians, Lutherans, etc.
OTOH, Arminians and FV’ers may be dandy Christians, but that doesn’t mean their theological distinctives are a good fit with the PCA.
Jordan Mark Siverd said,
June 11, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Re 35
Before moving to New Orleans a year ago, I was a member for 4 years at Covenant Presbyterian in St. Louis (though we did help them plant a daughter church, too). The last year or so there, Dr. Sean Lucas was our pastor.
Both he and my current pastor (Rev. Ray Cannata) are wonderful people. If only some of their moxie would rub off on me I’d definitely be the better for it! =)
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 12, 2007 at 7:12 am
Jared
My own concerns over the FV all center on how they read the WS. It is one thing to use the language of the confession to say that you affirm what it says, but it all together a different matter to change the content of that language. The FV advocates do this. They speak of two kinds of election, and two kinds of justification- the Westminster divine never did this. Some of the FV, following Norman Shepherd , discard altogether the Covenant of Works, others like Wilson, retain the formula but again change the content of the CoW. Some in the FV , following their hero NT Wright, jettion the whole concept of imputation,(Wright called the traditional Reformed concept of imputation by that old candard ‘legal fiction’ and a doctrine the Apostle Paul would not recognise) while others insist, with Shepherd, that the active obedience of Christ is totally unneccesary, thus their herculean effort to dispense with the AOBoC as not being essential to the WS because a very small minority among the divines expressed reservations about it (most interesting however, is that Gataker,Vines and Twisse NEVER expressed disagreement over the CoW, something that Shepherd and his followers in the FV are adament about insisting that rejection of one entails rejection of the other as well).The point is not ,as many in the FV would have you believe, over ’strict’ subscribtion, but over ‘how’ the WS is to be used. One of the more vocal defenders of the FV, Mark Horne recently declared that one could fully embrace NT Wright’s understanding of justification AND affirm the WS- that , I would contend ,is pure nonsense, and Wright himself would be the first to say so because he already did-specifically declaring that the ‘Post-Reformation’ (read here the WS) understanding of justification in particular is what he is seeking to over throw.If the PCA and OPC allow this kind of thing to fly under the radar then the WS are simply window dressing and will in time suffer the same fate that over took the PCUSA, who in 1967 finally decided that the WS were the product of 17th cent. ’scholasticism’ and as such no longer sufficient (something that Jeff Meyers is on record as saying as well) and needed to be put in the attic to collect dust.
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 7:29 am
“They speak of two kinds of election, and two kinds of justification- the Westminster divine never did this.”
What about Calvin? What about the Bible?
“others insist, with Shepherd, that the active obedience of Christ is totally unneccesary”
Active obedience, or the imputation of active obedience?
“Mark Horne recently declared that one could fully embrace NT Wright’s understanding of justification AND affirm the WS”
Can you quote him on this, Gary?
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 12, 2007 at 7:50 am
Todd the non-FV Federal Visionist
You are like the guy that dresses up in black and silver ,wears spiked shoulder pads with a skull mask on and sets in the end zone seats at Oakland collosium , saying, ” I not cheering for any one team in particular, I just want to see a good football game.” You posted comments on Horne’s blog, so you know full well what he said. The FV is ‘recovering’ what Calvin taught. Are you serious?! There is not a Calvin specialist among them. Good grief.
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 7:59 am
Dude, I’m mostly interested in accurate representation and the ninth commandment.
Anyone can see just what Mark said in the blog post and comments that you’re talking about:
http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=1459
And anyone can judge whether you’ve represented Mark fairly in 43. My favorite part of all that is Glenn’s surprise at your manner, Gary: “I’m shocked. Is there any chance that this could be someone posing as Gary Johnson? I just can’t believe that he didn’t interact at all with what you guys were saying. This is simply unbelievable, as Jeff said.”
“There is not a Calvin specialist among them.”
This is a common theme for you, Gary. What qualifies one as a specialist? Just who has a right to speak up in this debate?
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 8:03 am
Gary: “others insist, with Shepherd, that the active obedience of Christ is totally unneccesary”
Shepherd on the OPC report: “Here the Report means to say more accurately, “the necessity of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience” as the meritorious ground for our justification and salvation. No one questions that his active obedience is necessary for our salvation.”
Mrs. Beth Ellen Nagle said,
June 12, 2007 at 8:13 am
Todd, so what did Calvin say about two elections? I am confused here. Resources anyone?
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 12, 2007 at 8:13 am
Todd The Great Defending Dude Of All Things FV
Here we go again with the 9th commandment charge. Anytime the FV are backed into a corner this starts flying. In addition to Horne’s enthusiastic endorsement of Wright on justification ( what, pray tell, Todd Dude, is Horne talking about here?),he has also written a 50 page plus defense of Norman Shepherd, (who to his credit no longer claims that his views are in keeping with the WS, in fact he has come out ansd suggested that Reformed churches who presently use the WS should switch over to the Three Forms of Unity instead). So what do we have here? Wright’s views on justification seasoned with a heavy dose of Shepherd, stir bliskly and there you have it-Federal Vision Surprise!
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 8:16 am
Mrs. Nagle, here’s a quotation from Calvin using the word election in an uncommon way:
“Now then it is of God’s free election that we have his Word purely preached unto us and that we have his Gospel and Sacraments. And therein we have reason to confess that he has shown himself generous to us…So then, when the Gospel is preached in a place and it has the warrants that God gives men salvation - as when we have Baptism and the Lord’s Holy Supper ministered uncorruptly - we may say it is an election of God. But yet for all that, in the meantime he holds to himself those he so wishes in order that people should not trust the outward signs except by faith and obedience, knowing that although we have been chosen to be of the Body of the Church, yet if we do not make that election to our profit, God can well enough cut us off again and reserve a final number to himself.” (Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 53, Saturday, 3 August 1555).
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 8:18 am
“Horne’s enthusiastic endorsement of Wright on justification”
That’s a bit closer to accurate. The way you said it first — “Mark Horne recently declared that one could fully embrace NT Wright’s understanding of justification AND affirm the WS” — is a lot more problematic.
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 8:26 am
Gary, I’m also still interested in your thoughts on this question: What qualifies one as a “specialist”? Just who has a right to speak up in this debate?
jared said,
June 12, 2007 at 8:27 am
Anne,
So what if FV-supporters have meetings together and gain from fellowshipping with one another? That’s what Christians do. And they certainly don’t have to completely agree with one another to do it. I think the FV does mostly agree on the major points and that most of those points are already detailed in the Westminster Standards. Where they differ is precisely where we disagree with the movement and some of them differ to the extent that it puts them outside the bounds of the WS while others don’t. This is why the reports are missing their mark, because you can’t sweep the entire movement under the same rug. By the way, what does ISTM mean?
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 8:30 am
Calvin on double election: “See here, I pray you, the election of God, whereby he putteth such difference between the lineage of Abraham and all the rest of the world, that he made the same lineage his church of purpose, that the signs of his favor and of his covenant should remain there, and that his name should be called upon there, so as he offered the promises of salvation to them that descended of the same race and lineage. . . . Lo, here, I say, a general election that belonged to all the children of Abraham, and yet was that grace to be confirmed by faith but in a part of them. . . . Now then, God’s general election which extended to the whole people was not sufficient, but it behooved every man to be partaker of it in his own peculiar behalf. And how was that to be done? By faith. . . . Lo, here, the double election of God. The one extendeth to the whole people, because circumcision was given indifferently to all, both small and great, and the promises likewise were common. But yet for all that, God was fain to add a second grace, by touching the hearts of his chosen, namely of such as he listed to reserve to himself, and those came unto him, and he made them to receive the benefit that was offered them.” Sermons on Deuteronomy (1583, reprint ed., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), p. 439.
jared said,
June 12, 2007 at 8:30 am
G.L.W. Johnson,
I share your concerns with the way that the majority of FV advocates want to use the WS by redefining its language. However, in many cases FV advocates have explained that they are not redefining what the WS say about election and justification. I think it’s one thing to accuse the FV of having two definitions of election and justification and wholly another thing to say that both of their definitions are outside the bounds of the WS simply because the divines never spoke of two definitions. I understand that the point is not about strict subscriptionism and I actually agree with the FV (and the PCA) that the WS should not be used as an authority over the Scriptures themselves. For all of the PCA Study Report’s talk of not holding the WS above Scripture, there seems to be an unwillingness on the PCA’s part to further clarify and build upon the theology expressed by the WS, which I think is what the FV is honestly seeking to do (whether they are going about that task honestly is another story).
I am not so naive as to think they have been totally, or even mostly, successful in their endeavors but neither am I so quick and close-minded as to judge FV as a complete failure. Even if I largely disagreed with their theology, I do think they (or those individuals who do) are right to call for an examining of the WS in light of 19th, 20th and 21st century scholarship. I’ve little doubt that the Standards would come out relatively unscathed; having them updated and/or revised could, in my opinion, go a long way in avoiding future “internal” conflicts such as what we have on our hands now. Perhaps then we could stop fighting each other and start focusing on spreading the gospel.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 12, 2007 at 8:31 am
Todd
In all seriousness, and ‘elbows in the ribs’ aside- this is what frustrates many of us on the other side of the fence- the parsing of words. How is my describtion of Horne’s ‘full’ endorsement of Wright views on justification any different from his ‘enthusiastic’ endorsement of Wright’s views on justification? Also, historically, the expression ‘the Active Obedience of Christ’ always had reference to the flip side of ‘the Passvive Obedience of Christ’ as they related to imputation. It was until Shepherd and his followers came along that suddenly we start hearing ‘we affirm the AOoC, but not its imputation’.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 12, 2007 at 8:52 am
Jared
The WS never speak of a ‘temporary’ justification that can be and will be lost by this group of people the FV calls ‘the non-elect covenant members’ Like wise , the WS never speaks of a ‘covenantal’ election as something distinct from decredal election- and to try and read this into the WS is disingenious. One can sense the fact that the advocates in the FV know this all too well, which is why they keep harping about things like ’strict’ subscription-they know full well that they cannot shoehorn their views into the WS, so they start complaining about how the TRs are elevating the WS above the Scriptures- Charles Briggs took this very same course of action in his opposition to Old Princeton.
Tim Wilder said,
June 12, 2007 at 9:03 am
Re: 44
Todd R. Harris said,
“Active obedience, or the imputation of active obedience?”
“Active obedience”, in covenant theology, is obedience to the requirements of some covenant. “Active obedience” means fulfilling the demands of the Covenant of Works. Now if you say that the COW is a misnomer (following Shepherd and the FV), because it was a covenant of grace, there there were no demands to fulfill, and no active obedience either.
Tim Wilder said,
June 12, 2007 at 9:13 am
Re: 47
“Shepherd on the OPC report: “Here the Report means to say more accurately, “the necessity of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience” as the meritorious ground for our justification and salvation. No one questions that his active obedience is necessary for our salvation.””
This is EXACTLY what Shepherd and the FV do question. Now, Shepherd holds that a ritual perfection is needed in a sacrifice and that holding to this he claims to be holding to “active obedience”. But active obedience means meeting the demands of the Covenant of Works, or in other terms (and by definition) pactum merit, which is the very thing that Shepherd and the FV deny. (Passive obedience means submitting to the pushishment for covenant breaking, which means that the covenant had demands and punishments, rather than being a covenant of grace).
This is an example of the sort of jesuitical reservations FV people engage in when they claim to affirm the Confessions. For example Mark Horne passed his presbytery exam without stating reservations, because when they asked him about the merit of Christ he thought about the verse “Worthy is the lamb.” even though he did not believe in merit in the covenantal sense of the standards that he was being asked about.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 12, 2007 at 9:23 am
Jared
I do not share your optimism about revising the WS and them coming out ‘unscathed’. If they are revised so that followers of NT Wright and Norman Shepherd can wholeheartedly sign on that would entail getting rid of the bi-covenantal framework along with the centrality of imputation as well as the traditional Protestant doctrine of justifcation. In which case, we have ,in Luther’s language,”Amisso ariculo justicationis, simul amissa est tota doctrina Christiana”. This ‘revised’ confession might appeal to Francis Beckwith, but I do not think that any Calvinist would be happy with it.
Tim Wilder said,
June 12, 2007 at 9:29 am
Re: 50
“So then, when the Gospel is preached in a place and it has the warrants that God gives men salvation - as when we have Baptism and the Lord’s Holy Supper ministered uncorruptly - we may say it is an election of God.”
Here is a good example of a term being used improperly. When the marks of the true church are present, this improperly called election.
“But yet for all that, God was fain to add a second grace, by touching the hearts of his chosen, namely of such as he listed to reserve to himself, and those came unto him, and he made them to receive the benefit that was offered them.””
But, properly speaking, election is only according to God’s decree for those who would actually be made to receive the offer.
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 9:30 am
Gary, the reson I asked about this statement — “Mark Horne recently declared that one could fully embrace NT Wright’s understanding of justification AND affirm the WS” — is simply that Mark didn’t say that.
Mark is certainly enthusiastic about lots of Wright’s specific exegesis and other formulations, but he has never claimed to “fully embrace” Wright’s understanding of justification. Just the opposite, in fact. Mark, like Lusk and Wilson, has expressed his disagreement with Wright about justitification as well.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 12, 2007 at 9:42 am
Todd
Both Horne and Lusk reservations about Wright are NOT central to the distinguishing features of Wright’s ‘new perspective’ understanding of justification-which is NOT the doctrine we find embedded in the Reformers and the WS-and the two cannot be mixed, as Horne and Lusk would have us believe. Wright does not claim that his understanding of the doctrine is compatable with the WS, so why do Horne and Lusk claim otherwise?
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 12, 2007 at 9:44 am
Todd
In what significant way does Horne expressly differ with Wright’s understanding of justification?
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 9:47 am
Mark affirms the imputation of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ for justification, which Wright denies:
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/credo_on_justification.htm
jared said,
June 12, 2007 at 9:48 am
G.L.W. Johnson,
So what if the WS don’t speak of a “temporary” justification or election? Does that mean we can’t talk about such things? I don’t think the FV is trying to ’shoehorn’ their views of election and justification into the WS (though maybe some are), I think they are (largely) agreeing with the WS and on top of them building their second definitions of election and justification. They aren’t asking us to read the WS upside down in order to “get” their understanding of election and justification, rather they are saying “Yeah, that’s what the WS say and we agree. But we are also saying this about justification and election which the Standards don’t even address.”
Now given this, is what they are saying outside the WS? Well, obviously yes because the Standards don’t speak that way. Does this mean the FV is outside the WS? For many of the advocates, no, it doesn’t because they aren’t disagreeing with or changing the Standards, rather they are building and expanding upon them. I get the feeling that if the WS didn’t say anything about the Trinity and the FV was getting all Trinitarian then the anti-FV crowd would be decrying the FV as outside the bounds of the WS. I don’t ever recall anyone saying that the WS are the last word on all things theology; it seems to me like they are becoming the Reformed community’s WatchTower and I don’t say that as a strike against the Standards.
Also, I certainly don’t want the Standards revised so that Shepherd and Wright or their followers (or anyone else, for that matter) can just “sign off” on it. It’s not called a confession for nothing, though I’m sure you don’t need to be told.
Tim Wilder said,
June 12, 2007 at 9:58 am
Re: 65
Do you remember when Horne discovered that there is a way that he could accommodate the language of “imputation of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ” and what he means by it?
What does Horne mean by “justification” in this context? Confessional justification of Wright’s “vindication”?
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 10:02 am
Tim, it’s at this point that I’ll bow out and let Mark speak for himself when he gets back from Memphis, if he so chooses.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 12, 2007 at 10:03 am
Todd
I agree with Tim .Either Horne is being naive or blatantly inconsistant.l This formula does not compute.
Tim Wilder said,
June 12, 2007 at 10:10 am
Re 68:
Horne discovered, what he should have know all along, that Jesus is the true Israel and as such fulfills God’s covenant with Israel. This was AFTER he passed his presbytery examination with the mental reservation about “worthy is the Lamb”. So, having noticed this fact about Jesus, Horne could see a way to affirm covenant obedience language about Christ, meaning the Mosaic covenant. If he were willing to affirm that the Mosaic covenant included a republication of the Covenant of Works, this would actually make him orthodox on this point.
Horne blogged about this discovery at the time. You should look it up.
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 10:13 am
Tim, I’d love a bit of help. Can you point the way? Thanks.
Tim Wilder said,
June 12, 2007 at 10:26 am
Re: 71
I could, but I won’t. Horne makes it as hard as he can for others to track what he says by constantly redoing his blogs. So do your own research.
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 10:52 am
LOL! Everything is a conspiracy for Tim Wilder!
I searched for “worthy lamb” but came up empty. I’ll try a couple more searches.
Hey, Tim. Can you tell us more details about the FV’s negative impact on the Reformed churches in Russia?
Tim Wilder said,
June 12, 2007 at 11:03 am
Re: 73
Why are you trying to steal Barlow’s big chance to establish his objectivity so that he can pass probation and start using his name on his “newspaper”?
Are you now giving up the claim that the PCA report committee was stacked, or are you still a conspiracy theorist?
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 12, 2007 at 11:03 am
Jared
I would recommend you get a copy of Samuel Miller’s ‘Doctrinal Intergrity: The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions and Adherence to Our Doctrinal Standards’. This was reprinted awhile back by Presbyterian Heritage Publications. It’s not the kind of book that many in the FV would be all that thrilled about.
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 11:12 am
I don’t believe I’ve made any comments about the committee’s makeup.
Come on, Tim. Give us some details about Russia. Unless you were just bluffing.
Anne Ivy said,
June 12, 2007 at 11:36 am
Mercy Maud, but y’all have been chattering like magpies! ;^)
All this talk and no one answered Jared’s question. I love questions I can answer. ISTM = It Seems To Me.
Did I overlook a reply to #63 when it’s asked “Wright does not claim that his understanding of the doctrine is compatable with the WS, so why do Horne and Lusk claim otherwise?”
That seems like a fair question. If Wright says his view of justification isn’t compatible with the WS, well, surely he should know. It’s strange to think of someone else essentially telling him that it IS.
Tim Wilder said,
June 12, 2007 at 11:36 am
“I don’t believe I’ve made any comments about the committee’s makeup.”
You “don’t believe” you have, or you have not? Don’t you have stand up for anything? Or do you just ask questions designed to waste countless hours of other people’s time? Is that your role?
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Tim, I’m pretty sure I haven’t. Tell me if I’m wrong. Otherwise, you’re just wasting your own time, with no one else to blame.
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 12:03 pm
“Wright does not claim that his understanding of the doctrine is compatable with the WS, so why do Horne and Lusk claim otherwise?”
No one has ever claimed that everything Wright says about justification is compatible with the WS. Certain aspects are, others aren’t. Simple.
Tim Wilder said,
June 12, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Re: 79
“Tim, I’m pretty sure I haven’t. Tell me if I’m wrong.”
So it has gotten to the point that you expect us to spend our time researching what you think and reporting it to you? You really don’t remember whether you have criticized the PCA Committee or whether they have always enjoyed your full confidence?
Re: 80
“No one has ever claimed that everything Wright says about justification is compatible with the WS. Certain aspects are, others aren’t. Simple.”
Which aspects of Wright’s view are compatible with the WS and which are not? You can tell us, as it is “simple”, right?
Todd R. Harris said,
June 12, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Again, Tim, you’re wasting you’re own time in writing this stuff. And I’ll let you do your own research on Lusk’s and Horne’s views on Wright.
Tim Wilder said,
June 12, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Re: 82
Bluff called. You ask endless, time wasting questions, but refuse to look up answers yourself, even if it is about you own inability to remember your own opinions.
You are just here to throw sand in the gears.
jared said,
June 12, 2007 at 1:35 pm
G.L.W. Johnson,
Thanks for the reccommendation and the interaction. I don’t understand why the FV would not be thrilled about affirming the importance and utility of creeds, confessions and doctrinal standards. In fact, I haven’t seen any FV advocate speak against such things, nor do I suppose I will. Some FV advocates are calling for revision but none (that I know of) are calling for wholesale removal of the WS. I also don’t think such a call for revision is malicious.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 13, 2007 at 9:00 am
Jared
Jeff Meyers is on record calling the WS “insufficient” and the by product of 17th cent. “scholasticism” which has to be a bad thing in Meyers mine.
Todd
I am not going to let you off the hook with your ’simple’ explanation on Wright, Horne , Lusk and the WS. They affirm ’somethings’ in Wright, but not ‘everything’-Todd, it is the things that they affirm from Wright that are incompatible with the WS. This is where Samuel Miller’s book that I referenced earlier is so critically important right now. Miller contended that confessional subscription is ” not a mere formality, but a very solemn transaction, which means much, and infers the most serious obligation”. As a result, Miller would have looked on the tactics of those FV in the PCA and OPC as committing “a solemn perjury” by their evasive language over ’strict’ subscription and the reading of alien views like those of Wright into the WS.Miller warned the Presbyterian Church of his day about the dangers of allowing church officers the liberty to adopt the WS “with an avowed laxity of construction, or an evident mental reservation,as altogether inconsistent with Christian probity”.A half century later the great Presbyterian theologian W.G.T.Shedd issued a similar warning during the Briggs controversy ( Briggs was urging confessional revision ,saying that the WS were “too scholastic” and needed to brought up to date with all the new insights coming out of Germany). Perhaps no other individual was as aware of Briggs’ lack of integrity than Shedd ( both Briggs and Shedd served together on the faculty of Union seminary in New York). In the last chapter of his last book entitled ‘Denominational Honesty and Honour’, Shedd wrote, “But hersy is not so great a sin as dishonesty. There may be honest hersy, but not honest dishonesty. A heretic who acknowledges that he is such,is a better man than he who pretends to be orthodox while subscribing to a creed which he dislikes, and which he saps under pretense of improving it and adapting it to the times.” Shedds book had this appropiate title ‘Calvinism Pure and Mixed: A Defensive of the Westminster Standards” ( 1893, this was reprinted by the Banner of Truth Trust a couple of decades ago).
Ossification and “Defining the Covenant” « Green Baggins said,
June 19, 2007 at 11:37 am
[...] being said, I am now going to turn my attention to his earlier response to my response. I would certainly agree that this statement is quite a bit more balanced than his earlier [...]