Ossification and “Defining the Covenant”
June 19, 2007 at 11:36 am (Federal Vision)
Douglas Wilson has offered his opinion on various comments that I have made (and some others might also have made), regarding the NAPARC decisions so far on the FV and the NPP. The argument that he makes here is that Luther can happen again, and that Rome can happen again, ironically in the TR camp, which would claim to be rather militantly against Rome. I will assume that by “already there” in Rome, he means the method of argumentation that we have been using, not any substantive doctrinal content. He is saying that the TR’s are actually trying to ossify the tradition, rather then being actual scholars in the tradition (which would imply, presumably, continuity and discontinuity with the tradition). This seems to be the point he is making by saying, “Those who go by the nickname TR are actually curators of the Reformed mausoleum, and not scholars in the Reformed tradition.”
In reply, I can say two things to brother Wilson (not meaning this sarcastically). The first is that the form of his argument is indeed valid. It is quite possible for another Luther to come along and stand against the ecclesiastical heirarchy, and even be right in doing so. But the logical corollary of that is that the TR’s are completely wrong in their doctrinal stance, if Wilson is correct. This is, of course, different from saying that we are all under one big umbrella tent, and that we can all fit, which seems to be what most FV’ers have been saying. Now, there is always the possibility of rhetorical overstatement with Wilson, and I hope he will clarify this point. Maybe he is only claiming that the method of argumentation tends towards ossification, and not the actual doctrinal content. We will have to wait and see what he says on this point. I can modify the actual statement a bit to make it more logical: while all these alphabetical soup mixes do not prove that the FV is out of accord, does it not become more and more likely that the critics are correct, at least in some of their critiques? Yes, truth is not in numbers, and God outweighs the world by anyone’s reckoning. And more folk saying it does not necessarily mean that it is true. But is it not more likely? I confess that I would like to see some humility on this point from the FV side. I would like to see evidence of soul-searching “Are we really correct on these points? Do the critics have valid points of criticism? What about the fact that all of these denominations have condemned these views? Should I go back to the beginning and start from the ground up?” Instead, I see a lot of FV guys claiming that the critics are doing nothing but smearing the FV. As if accusing the TR’s of breaking the ninth commandment is a less serious charge that the purported problem of the TRs’ using the word “heresy.”
That 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 statements:
Now, to the point of Lane’s disagreement, now that a person is converted, can we make distinctions in the text? Certainly we can distinguish imperatives from indicatives, laws from promises, and so on. But now that I am saved, everything is contexualized within that grace.
I can go with this, except for one thing, which is mainly more a question: does the first use of the law still apply to the Christian? Do we still need to know that we have not obeyed and that Christ has obeyed for us, vicariously? I think so. I doubt that Wilson would disagree with this as I have put it here. However, I would not phrase it in such a way as to imply that grace is more fundamental than law in the believer’s life. They are both equally ultimate…in Christ, the Law-Keeper and Grace-Giver.
On the egg-omelette question, we are just going to have to agree that the analogy breaks down. We might differ on where it breaks down, but we agree that it does. So let’s move on.
On the Reformed Scholastics, I am going to ask a respectful question: has Wilson read Muller’s volumes? It is very difficult to maintain that the Reformed scholastics were rationalistic, decretal theologians in the face of Muller’s evidence. I would be very interested in Wilson’s interaction with Muller. No one can state a position with authority on this question unless he has read Muller and interacted with his arguments. Maybe Wilson has done so. That’s why I ask the question.
And now, I will move on to the next chapter of RINE, on the definition of the covenant. Wilson defines: “Covenants among men are solemn bonds, sovereignly administered, with attendant blessings and curses” (pg. 63). I was a trifle confused by this: is he referring to covenants only among men, or to covenants between God and man? I assume that he means the latter in context, since he does say “sovereignly administered.” But the phrase “covenants among men” is not clear. The other question I have is in the term “bond.” Does that term mean an agreement, a relationship, or both?
Then he goes on to talk about whether covenant history is bicovenantal or monocovenantal. I must confess to some confusion here. First he says that “Scripture teaches that there is only one covenantal history, which we may call the covenant of grace” (64, emphasis his). Does he mean that there is only one covenant in history? What is the precise import of the phrase “covenantal history?” Because later, he says that “Before the Fall, God had made a covenant with mankind in Adam…” and then “The subsequent redemptive covenant was equally grounded in history” (64, emphasis mine). He seems to be saying that there is one covenantal history with two covenants. Is he saying that the first covenant was a covenant of grace, and that it was remade? Then he later says “Ultimately, they (the successive, unfolding covenants) constitute the same covenant. The first was with Adam and Eve” (pg. 65, emphasis original). So this seems to state a monocovenantal position.
I agree with Wilson that “All of these covenants find their ultimate fulfillment in the Lord of the covenant, that is, in Jesus Christ” (pg. 65), although I, being a dual-covenantal guy, would probably say “Lord of the covenants,” plural. I would argue that Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Works by His perfect active and passive obedience, and fulfilled the Covenant of Grace by being the source and fountain of grace for His people, precisely because He fulfilled the CoW as just described. Certainly, Romans 5 points in this direction (see the outstanding discussion of this in the Fesko book). Christ was in the same position as the first Adam, only Christ obeyed where Adam disobeyed. Therefore, to us it is a Covenant of Grace.
The implications of Wilson’s theology in the practical realm can be seen on pp. 66-67, where Wilson enumerates the implications. The first is that we should avoid “morbid introspection,” since our duty is to visible covenantal faithfulness. I wonder what he means by “morbid introspection.” Does he mean thereby to exclude all introspection, as in seeking to determine what the Holy Spirit is doing inside of us? Is this an impossibility? Or is he only excluding morbid introspection, and allowing non-morbid introspection? I apologize for having so many questions for Wilson, but in all honesty, I found the chapter confusing. I think I know where he is going (monocovenantalism), but am not sure.
markhorne said,
June 19, 2007 at 11:47 am
“But the logical corollary of that is that the TR’s are completely wrong in their doctrinal stance, if Wilson is correct.”
I don’t believe that follows Lane, other that the TR doctrine that FV is heretical. TRs can be completely orthodox otherwise. Societies have destroyed people no different than them because of perceived differences. The Athanasius analogy may not be intended as broadly as you are assuming.
OK, going back to radio silence (on this station).
greenbaggins said,
June 19, 2007 at 11:54 am
Mark, could you please clarify your statement? The first sentence does not make sense English-wise.
Xon said,
June 19, 2007 at 12:01 pm
The only thing that has to be “completely wrong” in the TRs doctrine, if FVers are right, is their belief (doctrine?) that says that the FVers are heretics. But overall they can be quite orthodox.
When Luther first nailed up the 95 theses, and then held his ground in the aftermath, his intention was not to split the Church. He did not have the attitude of “since I’m meeting resistance from other Catholics and since I believe that I am correct despite that resistance, this means that they must be ‘completely wrong’ and therefore we have no business remaining in the same ecclesiastical institution.” Luther is just a historical example I am using to illustrate the way in which your argument here isn’t valid. You could argue, perhaps, that Luther should have reasoned the way you suggest, but his approach seems reasonable and ‘balanced’ to me.
Once the Catholics kicked him out, of course, it was a whole other story as far as the ‘big tent’ was concerned..
markhorne said,
June 19, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Ugh. “…other THAN
markhorne said,
June 19, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Ugh twice (enter by mistake)
“… other THAN the TR doctrine..”
TRs aren’t wrong in their positive theology (sola fide, imputation, etc) but in their identification of errorists.
And thanks for not making some remark about typical confusion
Stewart said,
June 19, 2007 at 12:24 pm
“The first is that we should avoid “morbid introspection,” since our duty is to visible covenantal faithfulness. I wonder what he means by “morbid introspection.” Does he mean thereby to exclude all introspection, as in seeking to determine what the Holy Spirit is doing inside of us? Is this an impossibility? Or is he only excluding morbid introspection, and allowing non-morbid introspection?”
Lane, I suppose one can ask you a similar question. What can any “kind” of introspection tells us about our salvation? Can someone be saved but never feel saved? If a faithful member of your congregation came to you saying that introspection wasn’t giving him assurance of his salvation, what would you point him to? How would you help him?
Tim Wilder said,
June 19, 2007 at 12:30 pm
If we look at the MARS case in particular, we see features that do not suggest TR ossification. As various people have pointed out, MARS was once much more friendly to Shepherd and his teaching. Even after Shepherd was ejected from Westminster, MARS had him as a board member and teacher. This suggests that they were not rigid and ossified. They were able to by sympathetic to what Shepherd said were his concerns, and they studied Schilder as well. But over time the MARS faculty became convinced the Shepherd’s views were not compatible with Reformed theology, so a separation had to be declared.
anneivy said,
June 19, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Stewart, wouldn’t 2 Corinthians 13:5 be applicable to your first question? “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test?”
I don’t understand how it can be even slightly suggested that self-examination to “see if you are in the faith” is anything other than appropriate and necessary.
Ruth said,
June 19, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Anne, it might be helpful to look back at least to 2 Cor. 12:19-21 for context and consider that Paul’s admonition is corporate.
Stewart said,
June 19, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Anne,
I’m not saying that it is not appropriate, I’m just questioning how much knowledge we can really get from it concerning our assurance of salvation.
Xon said,
June 19, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Also, why does “examine yourselves” (which is indeed corporate per Ruth’s suggestion) automatically get translated to “look inside yourself”?
True, we are looking to “see” that Jesus Christ is “in” us, but we do this by examinig ourselves to see if we are “in the faith.” What does it mean to be “in the faith,” as Paul is using that phrase in 2 Cor.? And what on earth is “the test” he is referring to?
To tweak Stewart’s earlier question to Lane, what would Lane do (and I ask simply as an exercise in our mutual edification) with a parishoner who had read this passage in a strict individualistic-internalist way and who said to him, “Pastor Keister, I’ve examined myself like Paul says in 2 Cor. to see if I am in the faith, and I think I’ve failed the test.” ?
Sean Gerety said,
June 19, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Lane, I suppose one can ask you a similar question. What can any “kind” of introspection tells us about our salvation?
Anne is correct and that one should measure the things they believe against the Scripture. FWIW that is exactly what the Committee Report did in the case of the FV/NPP using the shorthand of the Confessional exposition of Scripture which ALL PCA elders should assent to, but clearly do not.
As to assurance, I have always been perplexed how it is that “looking to one’s baptism” is suppose to provide assurance? Since FV men believe that being made a “Christian” is accomplished via the wet head of baptism accomplished by an “authorized” representative of the church (”authorized” by whom?), yet they also believe that baptized Christians can be lost, it would seem to me that baptism provides no warrant for any confidence of salvation whatsoever. Quite the opposite as Luther (since his name keeps popping up) clearly recognized.
I guess this is why they replace simple faith with faithfulness. In this case, every papist should have the same level of assurance of salvation as do you? Besides, the FVers claim RC baptism is just as valid as yours. It seems to me its all the same boat. After all, I heard Wilkins tell a packed room of college aged students in Hampton, VA that, while not his “preferred” method, forced baptisms makes people “Christians.” Who needs that old Protestant idea of liberty of conscience when we have evangelists like Wilkins.
Doctrines like predestination and election, not to mention perseverance of the saints, simply are not good enough I suppose to engender any assurance at all, but somehow a wet head combined with our faithful obedience to a conditional covenant will. Wacky stuff.
Also, to Ruth, so what if we recognize Paul’s admonition as corporate? What does that change? Paul is addressing the church which is made up of individual believers, people of “the faith.”
Stewart said,
June 19, 2007 at 2:45 pm
“As to assurance, I have always been perplexed how it is that “looking to one’s baptism” is suppose to provide assurance?”
Sean, didn’t John Calvin say that we could look to our baptism for some assurance assurance?
Xon said,
June 19, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Looking to your baptism provides assurance b/c baptism was a moment in time when the Creator of the universe literally made a proclamation to you personally, “Child, I will be your God and you will be My people (person?).” It is something to “hang your hat on” as far as knowing that you have had some “genuine” contact with God in a favorable way. As opp’d to many formulations of Calvinists nowadays, where you either have the real deal or you have nothing at all but your own self-deception. And the thing about self-deception is it’s REAL hard to tell whether or not you have the real deal or not, since if you don’t have it then you are still a sinful reprobate whose heart is deceitful and wicked above all things. Thinking you have the real thing is just what a self-deceived person would think…
But we can tell people who have this sort of struggle (and many do have it), “You were baptized, and at your baptism God was present with you. Not just in some abstract way, not just in terms of some principle that applies to everybody, but for you, Bob Johnson, God showed up and said to the world ‘I am disposing myself favorably towards him. I am calling him out as My child.’”
You can know that God has given you something, b/c you’ve been baptized. That’s what I meant by something to “hang your hat on”. You can know that God has shown you real grace. Of course, you don’t know whether you will ‘continue’ in that grace forever, since many baptized people end up going to Hell. But, this is where we should be reminded of the promise of baptism itself. What does it “take” to “continue” in your baptism? It takes faith! You’re supposed to believe God’s promises; when God says you’re His, you believe it and you trust it. If you don’t believe, then that’s your problem right there. If you keep believing the promises God has made, then you persevere by definition. Salvation is by faith. But the God you are supposed to have faith in first showed up and made you His (in the historical outworking of things; I’m not talking about God’s eternal decree) when you were baptized. And if you believe that that’s really what He did, then guess what? That really IS what He did!
Stewart said,
June 19, 2007 at 3:21 pm
What Xon said.
Anne Ivy said,
June 19, 2007 at 3:29 pm
FORCED baptisms?
Tell me you’re making that up, Sean. Please. Tell me that.
I’ve tended to be (though I daresay the FV’ers here will find it hard to credit) favorably disposed to Wilkins, though obviously disagreeing with him on a LOT, but if the man actually thinks FORCED baptisms are in any way, shape or form valid, then he’s a nut.
Forced baptisms! Whatever next? =8^o
Nikki said,
June 19, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Xon,
I am really trying to hang with you, but what you’re describing seems incredibly man-centered, contradictory, and downright confusing.
I just don’t understand your Gospel. It doesn’t sound like Good News. It sounds scary and uncertain.
Just wondering, but, what would you say if you were sharing the Gospel with an adult unbeliever? I’ve never heard that addressed, and would like to know for my own curiosity.
Stewart said,
June 19, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Sean, you know good and well the context in which Wilkins was making this statement, but you purposefully omitted it. That intentional misrepresentation makes me sick. Shame on you.
Stewart said,
June 19, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Nikki, why would john Calvin write this? Do you understand his Gospel?
“Teacher: My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name?
Child: Yes, my father.
Teacher: How is this known to you?
Child: Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
http://www.joelgarver.com/writ/hist/calvin.htm
Anne Ivy said,
June 19, 2007 at 3:50 pm
BTW, yes, I’m quite familiar with that epistle, and am aware it was written to the corporate assembly in Corinth.
Seeing as how everything had to be hand-written and hand-carried and hand-delivered, and there’s no way Paul could be reasonably expected to know every person who was a member of that assembly, I’d be hard-pressed to figure out how else the letter would be written.
If the noun “yourselves” or “ownselves” (YLT) is indeed in plural form, ISTM your argument just went belly-up. Had Paul been writing to a corporate entity as A corporate entity, he’d surely have used a second-person singular pronoun, as in “Test yourself to see if you are in the faith; examine yourself!” By using the plural form, he’s clearly directing his remarks to the individuals in the corporate entity.
Anne Ivy said,
June 19, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Stewart, I’m obviously unfamiliar with the context. Could you clue me in, please?
BION, I’ve always rather liked Wilkins (I have friends who enjoy going to AAPC shindigs and are quite fond of him), so would be sincerely distressed to learn he believed forced baptisms could even exist as a theoretical concept.
Clearly Scripture knows nothing of a wholly involuntary baptism, barring those of small children, the mentally disabled, etc. by those responsible for their spiritual well-being.
Nikki said,
June 19, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Well, if CALVIN said it…
I’m not interested in debating. I have real questions. And Stewart, no, I do not understand that Gospel.
Hypothetically, how would you share the Gospel with an adult unbeliever who had never been baptized?
Stewart said,
June 19, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Nikki, I would tell him that Jesus died for his sins and that Jesus is Lord, and that he needs to put his faith in Him.
Sean Gerety said,
June 19, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Looking to your baptism provides assurance b/c baptism was a moment in time when the Creator of the universe literally made a proclamation to you personally, “Child, I will be your God and you will be My people (person?).”
That, of course, is false and FVers know it too, because they say Christians can be lost - baptism be damned. The God of Scripture isn’t that fickle. He’s not fickle at all and He knows all who are His before the foundation of the world, the moment of baptism or even lack thereof notwithstanding.
It is something to “hang your hat on” as far as knowing that you have had some “genuine” contact with God in a favorable way.
It seems to me that reprobate baptized members of the visible church can only presume they have “genuine” contact with God in a favorable way. They too would be wrong and interestingly for the same reasons the Jews who foolishly thought the sign of circumcision gave them genuine contact with God.
As opp’d to many formulations of Calvinists nowadays, where you either have the real deal or you have nothing at all but your own self-deception. And the thing about self-deception is it’s REAL hard to tell whether or not you have the real deal or not, since if you don’t have it then you are still a sinful reprobate whose heart is deceitful and wicked above all things. Thinking you have the real thing is just what a self-deceived person would think…
OK, so what? Many people are deceived. Many will say “Lord, Lord” on that terrible day too and point to the evidence of their own faithful obedience yet to no avail. So what? Should they have pointed to their baptism instead? I want to be clear how this is suppose to work?
Seems to me the “Calvinists nowadays” are merely following Paul who said not all Israel is Israel.
But we can tell people who have this sort of struggle (and many do have it), “You were baptized, and at your baptism God was present with you. Not just in some abstract way, not just in terms of some principle that applies to everybody, but for you, Bob Johnson, God showed up and said to the world ‘I am disposing myself favorably towards him. I am calling him out as My child.’”
Well, if that’s what you’d say, you would be presumptuous since you don’t really know that is what God has said, do you? If God really says what you say He says, then why in the FV theology are some Christian’s lost? I would think it is God who has failed them. Of course that’s not what FVer’s say. They claim it’s not God who has failed, but those baptized members of the FV covenant have failed God. They are unfaithful members of the FV covenant and they have failed to meet the demands God has supposedly imposed on them by virtue of their baptism (oddly, no FVer that I know of has yet provided a list of all these supposed demands that must be met).
Unfaithfulness leads to apostasy and faithfulness leads to glory. Faithfulness to exactly what and to what degree I’m not quite sure, but salvation by faith and works never smelled so sweet.
You can know that God has given you something, b/c you’ve been baptized. That’s what I meant by something to “hang your hat on”. You can know that God has shown you real grace. Of course, you don’t know whether you will ‘continue’ in that grace forever, since many baptized people end up going to Hell.
I realize there are some who fail to see that the FV is really just a modified version of the Murray/Stonehouse heresy of the so-called “Well Meant Offer,” but you’ve expressed this error about as clearly as anyone. No wonder Reymond says Murray really dropped the ball on this score and is guilty of imputing irrationality to God. To bad so few seem to recognize it.
I suppose the WMO could be rephrased in that God sincerely desires the salvation of all those baptized by an “authorized” representative of the church. And to think they say this isn’t priest craft? +
But, this is where we should be reminded of the promise of baptism itself. What does it “take” to “continue” in your baptism? It takes faith! You’re supposed to believe God’s promises; when God says you’re His, you believe it and you trust it. If you don’t believe, then that’s your problem right there.
Really? And to think all this time I thought belief was the gift of God. Silly me.
If you keep believing the promises God has made, then you persevere by definition. Salvation is by faith.
I agree. You said salvation is by belief and perseverance. I never said that FVers deny salvation by faith. It does however explain why you exclude faith alone. You are very much like Wilson and Jones over at Credenda who assert believing is doing. Which is why Wilson specifically ridicules salvation by “raw” faith alone. FWIW Wilson is one of the only men I’ve ever read who has successfully put the traditional and tautological definition of faith to good and productive use. To think I thought the expressed tautology was useless and added nothing to what was being defined. Wilson solved that dilemma.
Sean Gerety said,
June 19, 2007 at 4:19 pm
FORCED baptisms?
Tell me you’re making that up, Sean. Please. Tell me that.
I was there with a couple of friends and we were all amazed. I informed my Session, but they didn’t seem to think it warranted any more investigation, sorry to say. That might have been a serious mistake on their part, but your assessment is spot on.
Nikki said,
June 19, 2007 at 4:20 pm
But what then about baptism? Would baptism be necessary for salvation?
Again, I’m not trying to be feisty. I just have questions.
Stewart said,
June 19, 2007 at 4:30 pm
“But what then about baptism? Would baptism be necessary for salvation?”
No. Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is, however, a means of Grace, and the Laver of regeneration (Titus 3:5). Nike, what you’re reading on this blog is a technical in-house debate among mostly Presbyterians. This is not the best place to start your introduction to reformed theology. Perhaps some of the folks on this blog with more experience than me could recommend a book to you.
Stewart said,
June 19, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Sorry, I didn’t mean to call you a running shoe.
Nikki said,
June 19, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Re: 27
Nice.
So, what you’re saying is that I’m not smart enough to understand the fundamentals of your theology.
Nikki said,
June 19, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Stewart,
I am not offended. I am actually amused.
I am also quite “in-house.” And when my PCA Pastor explains the Gospel to me, I get it.
I just don’t get yours.
Stewart said,
June 19, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Nikki,
What about it don’t you get?
Stewart said,
June 19, 2007 at 4:47 pm
“So, what you’re saying is that I’m not smart enough to understand the fundamentals of your theology.”
No. I’m not saying that. But your statement about not understanding Calvin’s Gospel made me think you were a Baptist like Sean.
Stewart said,
June 19, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Sean,
Would you care to comment on post 19. What do you think Calvin is saying?
William Hill said,
June 19, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Q. 165. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.
Note: those baptized enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.
David Gadbois said,
June 19, 2007 at 5:29 pm
As usual, FV can’t seem to find a coherent way to grant assurance of salvation:
“Looking to your baptism provides assurance b/c baptism was a moment in time when the Creator of the universe literally made a proclamation to you personally, “Child, I will be your God and you will be My people (person?).”
T. David Gordon was right to point out in By Faith Alone that God can be “our God” in judgment as well as in salvation, so there is no need to read into that statement some form of quasi-salvific state.
“You can know that God has given you something, b/c you’ve been baptized. That’s what I meant by something to “hang your hat on”. You can know that God has shown you real grace. Of course, you don’t know whether you will ‘continue’ in that grace forever, since many baptized people end up going to Hell.”
I don’t care if I have been shown “real grace” that is not saving.
“But, this is where we should be reminded of the promise of baptism itself. What does it “take” to “continue” in your baptism? It takes faith! You’re supposed to believe God’s promises; when God says you’re His, you believe it and you trust it. If you don’t believe, then that’s your problem right there.
If you keep believing the promises God has made, then you persevere by definition. Salvation is by faith”
If “that’s your problem right there”, then we are back to examining ourselves for the presence of faith (a faith which, more accurately, has Christ’s saving work as its object, not that “we are his” in a covenantal sense [whatever that means]). So FV hasn’t gotten us anywhere. It is all smoke and mirrors to lead us right back to where we started.
And, again, I see more talk of “believing the promises.” This is usually FV lingo utilized when they don’t know what they are talking about to rhetorically gloss over the issues (and somehow it proves that they’re right). Believe what promises? Are we talking about conditional promises? What conditions? Or are we talking about believing the blessings contained in the promises?
Stewart said,
June 19, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Re: 24
Sean, could you show me where a FVer says that those predestined before the foundation of the world can lose their salvation? A quote, a page number….something.
William Hill said,
June 19, 2007 at 6:22 pm
He won’t be able to….no FV proponent of any major weight has ever denied WCF Ch. 3. All of them agree that God has an established number of elect people and that number cannot be changed.
Sean Gerety said,
June 19, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Sean, could you show me where a FVer says that those predestined before the foundation of the world can lose their salvation? A quote, a page number….something.
In Wilson’s theology, election and reprobation are not eternal decrees of God made before the foundation of the world, they are states which men enter as a result of their actions under the objective covenant — they are covenantal outcomes. They are made elect by baptism, and reprobate by failing to fulfill the (unspecified) conditions of the objective covenant. Wilson’s election and reprobation are conditional and revocable. Each is conditioned on one’s performance. Garver makes this idea even clearer as he reshapes the Arminian error (espoused by many Halfway Calvinists) of the “well-meant offer” in terms of the covenant:”[E]lection is only revealed in and through the covenant. The covenant people are the elect people of God in Christ, the Elect One of God. Sadly, many of those who are among the elect people will turn out to be reprobate through apostasy. Nonetheless, God’s purposes stand as he gathers his elect people in and through the covenant. Those who persevere in faith have no one to thank but God in his free and sovereign electing love poured out — salvation is by grace alone. Those who apostatize have no one to blame but themselves for having squandered God’s good gifts…. If someone is in Christ by baptism — united to the Head as a member of the Body — then that person is elect. If that person apostatizes and no longer abides in Christ (like the branches in John 15), he is no longer elect in Christ, but is reprobate, should he never repent and return. Whatever time we abide in Christ is a manifestation of God’s electing love for us and faithfulness to us.”
Since God’s love extends to the reprobate and elect alike, as both are “in Christ” by virtue of being “covenantally elected” at baptism, it follows that it is not God’s eternal and immutable love and hatred which determines election and reprobation. It is not on the basis of Christ alone that God loves his own, for we see that both the elect and reprobate are in covenant relationship with Christ, and this is so regardless of the time we abide in Christ. According to Wilson, “both the true and false son are brought into the same relation” to Christ. So what is the determining factor that separates the sheep from the goats? Wilson explains that “faith in the biblical sense is inseparable from faithfulness…. But when we have faith that works its way out in love, which is the only thing that genuine faith can do, then the condition that God has set for the fulfillment of His promise has been met” (186-187). The ones who, through their faithfulness, “meet the condition that God has set for the fulfilment of His promise,” become sheep.
In the objective covenant in which the sinner meets conditions and fulfills his covenantal obligations, thus qualifying himself for the salvation God has promised, Wilson confuses works with sanctification, and both with justification. Wilson’s conditional objective covenant is an outright denial of the Covenant of Grace and the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
William Hill said,
June 19, 2007 at 8:25 pm
of course he is elect — covenantally elect. The Bible understand the distinction. Do you?
A. Dollahite said,
June 19, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Lane,
I’m curious if you will continue to allow Sean to make such blatantly false/misleading statements about Pastor Wilson’s theology, which you are quite familiar with at this point? When Sean says, “In Wilson’s theology, election and reprobation are not eternal decrees of God made before the foundation of the world, they are states which men enter as a result of their actions under the objective covenant — they are covenantal outcomes,” he continually implies that Wilson doesn’t believe in decretal election. This of course is a RIDICULOUS AND FANTASTIC misrepresentation (compounded by further misrepresentations as his post in #38 continues), or a demonstration of a complete lack of understanding of Wilson’s theology. I know you have strong feelings about the FV, but it would certainly go a long way if you would rebuke these outright misrepresentations when they occur. To me at least, it would demonstrate some level of respect for your opponents, even though you’ll continue to stand forcefully against the FV. I don’t recall ever writing with such passion and frustration before on your blog, but there comes a time for everyone when they just can’t take it anymore. I would address comments to Sean, but he has made it clear over time that he rejects the many references to Wilson and others as brothers in Christ found in the reports critical of the FV.
Terry W. West said,
June 19, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Sean Gerety said: I realize there are some who fail to see that the FV is really just a modified version of the Murray/Stonehouse heresy of the so-called “Well Meant Offer,” but you’ve expressed this error about as clearly as anyone. No wonder Reymond says Murray really dropped the ball on this score and is guilty of imputing irrationality to God. To bad so few seem to recognize it.
My reply: So Sean in your opinion, the “well meant offer” is heresy? And we are supposed to take your opinions on the FV debate seriously? It would seem to me that you are espousing a gross form of hyper-calvinism and think that you are in the mainstream of historic reformed tradition.
Blessings in Christ,
Terr W. West
Terry W. West said,
June 19, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Mr. Gerety,
I asked this question of you on another blog, but your were banned before I could get a response. So I will repost a modified version of the same question here, because I would love to see your answer.
Why is it that every “clarkian” I have ever met seems to view themselves as a self-appointed defender of the confessional “truth”, but at the same time will not even engage in reasonable discussion on the very scriptures from which, they say, is the only “knowable” propositions? This is amazing to me. Certainly I don’t know every “clarkian”, so maybe the sample of you guys with whom I am familiar is not truly representative of the whole, but without fail, so far, every “clarkian” I have met and interacted with, who asserts that the only thing we can know are the proposition contained in the 66 books of the bible, this assertion somehow becomes, “their” properly deduced propositions are the only thing knowable and authoritative. This is illustrated by the observation that every “clarkian” I know, so far, holds some sort of hyper-calvinistic beliefs and when challenged on those belief from scripture they refuse to even consider the possibility that they are in error.?
Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
Stewart said,
June 20, 2007 at 8:55 am
Sean, so you actually believe that Garver and Wilson are using the term “election” in the decretal sense? Do you recognize the distinctions between decretal election and covenantally election? I think that you do. And I also think your are purposefully ignoring the careful distinctions and qualifications these men make in an effort to smear them. You ought to be ashamed.
Sean Gerety said,
June 20, 2007 at 9:42 am
he continually implies that Wilson doesn’t believe in decretal election. This of course is a RIDICULOUS AND FANTASTIC misrepresentation
Who cares if he believes in “decretal election” since the doctrine is both perverted, vitiated and consequently contradicted by Wilson’s sensate and anti-Christian covenant and his the creation of a separate and fictitious “elect” class which includes moist headed reprobates. However, I do realize that some of you men couldn’t recognize a contradiction if it hit you on the head, and some of you I’m sure view such apparent contradictions in your theology as a mark of Christian piety, but that’s hardly my fault. Although I see I hit a nerve.
Another great example is when FV propagandists used to scream that Norm Shepherd believes in justification by faith alone too. Indeed he does. Perhaps you were satisfied with that affirmation too. Thankfully, not everyone was so gullible. I believe I recently read a piece linked to Lane’s blog (which I can’t seem to find right now) dealing with exactly this question. You should read it.
Funny, not one of you men seem at all concerned with Xon’s complete rejection of the Christian gospel and the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Sean Gerety said,
June 20, 2007 at 9:44 am
So Sean in your opinion, the “well meant offer” is heresy?
Indeed it is.
And we are supposed to take your opinions on the FV debate seriously?
Indeed you should.
You men seem to think the direct attack on the doctrine of justification sprung up in a vacuum.
William Hill said,
June 20, 2007 at 9:50 am
Open invitiation: If any anti-FV individual would like to come on Covenant Radio TONIGHT to talk with Mark Duncan, chairman of the committee to re-examine Steve Wilkins please let me know (personal email is best but you can leave a messege here). The topic is the PCA GA adoption of the FV report.
Stewart said,
June 20, 2007 at 9:58 am
I wish Mark had been allowed to speak at GA. As I watched the web cast, I saw him standing in line with notes in his hands. I was waiting in anticipation for his comments. He has got really good perspective on this.
Sean Gerety said,
June 20, 2007 at 10:44 am
Terry West writes:
I asked this question of you on another blog, but your were banned before I could get a response.
Indeed I was kicked off after attempting to defend myself from some very personal and abusive attacks leveled at me by the blog host.
Why is it that every “clarkian” I have ever met seems to view themselves as a self-appointed defender of the confessional “truth”, but at the same time will not even engage in reasonable discussion on the very scriptures from which, they say, is the only “knowable” propositions? This is amazing to me.
What’s amazing to me is you thought your question, which seems to me to be nothing more than a backhanded slur, was so important that you had to repeat it here. Beyond that, what we’ve been discussing concerns not only what Scripture teaches, but what can be soundly inferred from Scripture, so it seems to me that your question is irrelevant to this discussion. If you’d like to discuss Gordon Clark’s biblical and defensible epistemology in greater detail feel free to email me off list.
This is illustrated by the observation that every “clarkian” I know, so far, holds some sort of hyper-calvinistic beliefs and when challenged on those belief from scripture they refuse to even consider the possibility that they are in error.?
If you can demonstrate through the use of right reason and the light of Scripture that I’m wrong in opposing the Federal Vision’s direct attack on the biblical doctrine of justification and that the FVers are as benign and as Christian as its advocates here insist, I’m all ears.
William Hill said,
June 20, 2007 at 10:54 am
I wish Mark had been allowed to speak at GA. As I watched the web cast, I saw him standing in line with notes in his hands. I was waiting in anticipation for his comments. He has got really good perspective on this.
Stewart,
Well, tonight you will get your chance, hopefully, to hear Mark Duncan’s perspective. Obviously, it won’;t change anything as to the vote but it should be an interesting conversation anyhow. It would be better if one anti-FV person who was at the Assembly came on to further discuss it with him.
Xon said,
June 20, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Nikki (#17), sorry I haven’t had a chance to come back to this thread until now.
Nikki, I appreciate your concern that the Gospel be proclaimed rightly. I share that concern! I was not “presenting the Gospel” in my earlier comments on how baptism can provide assurance. I was answering a specific question. FV (and Calvin) say that baptism is a (not the only) source of assurance, and some folks asked how this could be so. So I tried to give an account of how it could be so.
The Gospel is the good news that God the Son has done for us what we could not do for ourselves, has borne all our sins upon Himself, and has been crucified on our behalf and raised into glory on the third day. Now, if we only believe in Him (believe that He is who He says He is, believe in what He has done and put our trust in what He has accomplished and nothing else, etc.), then we will be saved to the uttermost (which includes being saved forever). Jesus is the firstfruits, and so just as He died and was raised so we shall die (to sin) and shall be raised also. All by faith, and only because God from the foundation of the world has seen fit to give us the faith we need out of His grace and nothing else.
That’s the Gospel. (And there’s always more that can be said, of course). That’s what I tell people when I share the faith with them.
But, now suppose that somebody who has heard all of this and who has been a believer for a while starts to have doubts about whether they are truly saved, truly belong to God, etc. This happens, doesn’t it? Then, in that situation, I think pointing the person to their baptism can be helpful.
As to whether my explanation of how this works is confusing, I can only plead my own human limitations. But I have, for whatever it is worth, discussed things in this way with friends in the past, friends who look up to me spiritually, and it genuinely has helped (so it seemed, and so they said). Of course, every person has a slightly different situation, and might need to hear things in a different way. Part of being a good pastor is tayloring what you say to the situation at hand. There is no one “answer” about “how to find assurance” that will work for every person. But, I never said there was. I’ve only been saying that baptism is one source of assurance, and that such a view has a nice pedigree in the Reformed tradition.
Now, if you are having trouble understanding it, then let’s talk about it! But it would be nice if we could do so in a context where one of us (me) wasn’t being suspected of heresy simply for saying things that Calvin (a fairly Reformed fellow) also said.
Hopefully my answer above was something of what you were hoping to hear?
Sean Gerety said,
June 20, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Per my remarks in #44 the piece is Saying “Justification by Faith Alone” Isn’t Enough, by J. Wesley White.
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/04/04/the-siouxlands-presbytery-study-committee-report-supporting-document-3/
Very good stuff and might work as a good mental roter-rooter for some of the FVers here who seem to think a thin Reformed veneer pressed over cheap particle board constitutes a solid piece of oak.
It really is frightening how easily it is for men to be bamboozled by clever fakes. It makes you wonder if they even ever knew the real thing.
greenbaggins said,
June 20, 2007 at 1:05 pm
The balance on baptism is important here. Baptism is a means of grace. As such, it feeds into assurance. But assurance must be based on more than just baptism, since some who are baptized apostatize. It won’t do to say baptism provides assurance for a person as long as he remains in the church. What then of apostate “churches” that do not preach the Gospel? To be a true church, there must be Word, Sacrament, and discipline. All three must be present in order for there to be a true church. Furthermore, one can be apostate and yet remain in the church all his life. Of course, the church is not then doing its job. But then, many churches don’t do their job perfectly. In such a case, baptism provides no assurance. What then must happen if we say that assurance is based solely on baptism, is that the person has to rely on his works for assurance of salvation. This won’t do, either. Assurance is based on *all* the means of grace, baptism included. It is based on no one means of grace alone. It is all of them together that make up our assurance. It is the Word working to change our hearts. It is the Spirit working with the Word in our hearts. It is the Lord’s Supper and baptism. It is prayer and fellowship with other believers. All of these things together constitute the irreducible complexity of assurance (to use Behe’s term). I don’t think we can extract any of those things and still have full assurance.
Xon said,
June 20, 2007 at 1:12 pm
And I agree with…every….single…word. That Lane just said. Nicely said!
Stewart said,
June 20, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Lane, I agree. Well said.
greenbaggins said,
June 20, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Uh, Oh. Quick, some TR’s please agree with me here! I’ve got too many FV’ers saying that I said something well! I’m afraid I am being seduced by the dark side! JK
at Mark Horne said,
June 20, 2007 at 2:01 pm
[...] Lane the reconciler. Way to go. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
Vern Crisler said,
June 20, 2007 at 2:46 pm
“Word, Sacrament, and discipline. All three must be present in order for there to be a true church.”
You’d get argument here. Something about the being of the church vs. the well-being of the church.
Vern
Glenn said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Lane,
I agree with everything you said in 52. I’m not trying catch up with the whole conversation you all are having, but I do have some thought about what you said in 52…
1) I think the issue of Baptism tends to deal, not with assurance in whole/general, but with assurance of whether your or I or anyone is a participant in the New Covenant. It’s not about whether you’ll be saved on the last day, but whether or not I’m in the Covenant and have a relationship with Jesus. Too much of the conservative pop-evangelical culture always talks about whether you were sincere when you prayed a prayer or something silly like that. An objective view of baptism and covenant membership takes those doubts away and allows a person to focus on the real issues… Am I being faithful NOW? and am I following Jesus NOW? (because I already belong to him). That’s one of the most important reasons why any Christian needs to know what their baptism assures them of… it’s not about the end, but about the beginning. It has to do with whether or not a person is genuinly participating in the New Covenant and the Church and the Spirit, regardless of their elect status in the decrees of God. Does that make sense? (Whether you agree or not)
2) Second, I think one of your statements about a “true Church” is where some things are needing clarification. I would not use the term “true” anymore. I prefer to use the word “faithful”. Using the terms true/false tend to make me think that no one in that church could be saved if they all died that day. And it also makes me think that no one in that church has been obligated by baptism to be faithful to Christ… But if we use the terms faithful/unfaithful for the denomination/local church, it still allows us to see that the group is part of the visible church, but in a state of apostasy unless it repents. What are you thoughts about true/false and faithful/unfaithful? Would you be able to interchange them, or would you not use the faithful/unfaithful terminology? Just curious.
Terry W. West said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Sean,
For the record, I am not FV. That being said, the problem is that you are a hyper-calvinist trying to portray yourself as being within the “mainstream” of the historic reformed tradition, and therefore your opinions have no relevance to this debate. Your hyper-calvinism is a far worse blight upon the reformed tradition then that which is espoused by the FV proponents.
Andy Gilman said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:12 pm
In #40 Andy Dollohite said:
[BOQ]
I’m curious if you will continue to allow Sean to make such blatantly false/misleading statements about Pastor Wilson’s theology, which you are quite familiar with at this point? When Sean says, “In Wilson’s theology, election and reprobation are not eternal decrees of God made before the foundation of the world, they are states which men enter as a result of their actions under the objective covenant — they are covenantal outcomes,” he continually implies that Wilson doesn’t believe in decretal election. This of course is a RIDICULOUS AND FANTASTIC misrepresentation (compounded by further misrepresentations as his post in #38 continues), or a demonstration of a complete lack of understanding of Wilson’s theology.
[EOQ]
I do not think Sean’s argument is a “ridiculous and fantastic misrepresentation” of Wilson’s position. What does Wilson mean when he SAYS he believes in “decretal election?” Does he mean the same thing our standards mean by “decretal election?” Wilson believes that the number of those ordained to persevere is fixed, and known to God from before the foundation of the world. That’s great as far as it goes, but it is not the definition given by our standards. It is only a subset of the confessional definition. The Larger Catechism, to use one example, says that the decretally elect and they alone, enjoy union and communion with Christ. If the FV says the decretally reprobate enjoy union and communion with Christ (in some undefined and undifferentiated “sense”), they have denied the confessional definition of “decretal election.” They don’t get a pass merely because they say: “We don’t mean ‘union and communion’ in the confessional ’sense.’” If they can’t define what they DO mean by “union and communion with Christ,” then we have every reason to believe they are contradicting the Standards, and that they are engaging in sophistry to try to cover up that fact.
Someone can believe that “God ordains whatsoever comes to pass in space and time…” without believing in “decretal election” as defined by our confessions. The FV position is that God ordains that some will persevere, and that some will apostatize. If that was the extent of the confessional teaching, then they are within confessional boundaries. But the FV wants to say that all who are ceremonially baptized, are in union and communion with Christ, and possess every benefit (except perseverance) which the confessions reserve only to the decretally elect. Therefore it is true that Wilson does not believe in “decretal election” as defined by our confessions.
Sean Gerety said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Your hyper-calvinism is a far worse blight upon the reformed tradition then that which is espoused by the FV proponents.
Oh, my. Hyper-calvinism. Just the name sends shudders down my spine. That’s quite a convincing argument you have there Terry. Let me just say you have convinced me of my error. Impressive. LOL
If you’re ever ready to go actually debate the question of the WMO and its inherent relationship to the contradictory doctrines taught by the false teachers hawking the so-called “FV” let me know. However, if you cannot see its relevancy to the heresies being taught by these Neo-Legalists in the PCA and elsewhere, I have a nice hole you can stick your head back into.
Sean Gerety said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Thank you Andy.
Xon said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I think Terry’s first point is especially good, as well, and it comunicates very well what I was presenting in #17. Some people who want to know if they are “going to Heaven when they die” (i.e., do they have “full salvation to the uttermost”?) are encouraged when they hear that they have a definite contact point with Christ already via their membership in the new covenant community via baptism. This is what gives them somewhere to “hang their hat”–to know that they are not in fact floating detachedly in soteriological space, with no genuine connection to Christ whatsoever, a self-deceived hypocrite and nothing more. They may not end up being saved in the end, b/c they may not be elect; that’s all true. But if they aren’t elect then that will reveal itself through their no longer having faith in Christ. The point is that hearing that they have already been claimed by Christ in some sense at their baptism, that whatever happens later in God’s plan they really have been united to Christ and made on of His covenantal people, is just the sort of thing that can encourage a person to have faith in Christ. You ARE His, believe it! If you do believe it, then guess what? You keep being His, and you show yourself to be elect. There’s a whole encouraging cycle of reasoning here that can get started by reflecting upon a person’s baptism. But as Lane said this isn’t “the way” for all people.
greenbaggins said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Glenn, what makes assurance of salvation into something whereby we may know the hope that shall *never* make them ashamed, and in which we are sealed unto the day of redemption (WCF 18.1-2)? It says plainly there that we can full assurance of *final* and complete salvation, not just assurance that we are in right now.
Stewart said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Sean, your rhetorical style is just like the one John Robbins employs. I can actually see the venom running down my computer screen.
Robert K. said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Is it common for FV supporters to use hyper-Calvinist the way Arminians use the term? Sloppy and dishonestly? I.e. hyper-Calvinist=5-Point Calvinist? Or something similar?
Xon said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Andy, your argument in #60 is exactly the sort of insanity that makes some people worry about systematic theology. But I say that in love.
Georgia fan: Do you believe that Herschel Walker existed?
Lou Holtzthththththth, college football analyst: Uh, yeah…
UGAF: I don’t believe you
LH: Oh. Well, I don’t really know what to tell you. I know he played at Georgia from 1980-1982, and was one of the greatest college players of all time.
UGAF: THE greates player of all time…
LH: Okay, yeah, I can agree with that. I can’t think of anybody else who was that huge of a difference-maker and who was that good when they were that young. Maybe Earl Campbell…
UGAF: Grrr…
LH: But I’ll stick with Herschel. Best ever. Sure.
UGAF: But do you believe that he won the Heisman Trophy in 1982?
LH: Well, sure I do!
UGAF: But do you believe that he led Georgia to the national championship in 1980, defeating Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl while playing with a dislocated shoulder?
LH: Yes, I believe that too. That really was a wonderful gam…
UGAF: But do you believe that, when he went to the USFL instead of the NFL, that he made the New Jersey Generals the greatest professional team in the history of sports?
LH: Uh…….
UGAF: Well, DO you?
UGA fan picks up a rock or two. The crowd closes in.
LH: Well, I’m sorry, but that last one was just silly. Who on earth would say that a USFL team owned by Donald Trump was the greatest professional team in the history of sports?
UGAF: Anyone who really believed in the “doctrine of Herschel Walker”, that’s who!
UGA fans stone Lou Holtz until he is dead.
Moral: You either believe it all, or you don’t believe it at all.
A. Dollahite said,
June 20, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Lane,
I seem to recall you making remarks that someone who cares about the truth will not only affirm that truth himself, but distance himself from, or correct those who malign that truth. You know it is true that Wilson believes and fully embraces decretal election as defined by the WCF. You are bright enough to know that he also differentiates between decretal election and covenantal election, without destroying his belief in the former. So, will you please publicly correct Sean G. and Andy G. for their continued public misrepresentation of Pastor Wilson?
greenbaggins said,
June 20, 2007 at 4:30 pm
A. Dollahite, I have privately emailed Sean about this matter. He has agreed to lower his tone. However, I actually believe that this so-called covenantal election fudges the boundaries between the elect and the non-elect, and thus endangers the doctrine of election. Affirmation of decretal election is something that all the FV’ers say. However, I am not convinced by any means that covenantal election is anything other than an attack on perseverance of the saints. The issue comes down to benefits, benefits, benefits: do decretally reprobate covenant members get saving benefits like justification, sanctification, etc.? If so, then covenantal election is contradictory to decretal election, since the benefits overlap, but the perseverance doesn’t. Now, Wilson does not believe that NECM’s are justified (at least as far as I know). In this he differs from Wilkins on pp. 58ff of _Federal Vision_. But I do not know what other saving benefits Wilson might apply to the NECM. So, any definitive statement will have to await the answer to that question. Maybe you can ask him and get his answer.
A. Dollahite said,
June 20, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Lane,
I appreciate your response, and I’ll be interested to see what “lower his tone” entails. If it means continuing to say Wilson doesn’t believe in decretal election then I don’t think you accomplished much. Furthermore, and for what it’s worth, I do find it distressing when your default position on Pastor Wilson (a fellow Christian in your eyes) is to assume he is guilty until proven innocent. You say you don’t want to make a definitive statement because perhaps there is some unknown writing out there that will prove Wilson a contradictory heretic on election. Pragmatically that means that you’re not willing to say Sean and Andy G. are wrong. I understand you don’t have complete knowledge of every one of Pastor Wilson’s views on election, but what reason is there to hesitate confirming what you’ve read he says he believes (throughout RINE)? If Wilson has not given you reason to think he rejects decretal election as it is commonly understood (which according to you he hasn’t yet), and at the same time he provides statement after statement of his black coffee Calvinism which includes a belief in decretal election, why the hesitation to simply say that you believe him? This is the distressing part.
greenbaggins said,
June 20, 2007 at 5:03 pm
A. Dollahite, if men are innocent until proven guilty, then so must Sean and Andy be innocent until proven guilty. So, I say, Wilson is not guilty of confusing the two unless he affirms *any* of the ordo salutis as coming to the NECM. I don’t consider RINE to have cleared up that question. If he does affirm that saving benefits come to the NECM, then he is guilty, in my book. But Sean and Andy may have already seen this. And so, they might be innocent of false charges. What is distressing to me is that the FV is rather quick to throw out the ninth commandment charge, which, imo, is a far more serious charge than heresy, since heresy can be as benign as credo-baptism, whereas no breaking of the ninth commandment is small. What say you to that?
Andy Gilman said,
June 20, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Re: Xon in #67
I appreciate your attempt at humor, but I don’t have even the foggiest idea what that script has to do with my point.
A. Dollahite said,
June 20, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Lane,
Let me see if I’m tracking you here…
1) You want people to take the ninth commandment seriously… (and something about breaking the ninth commandment being a worse charge then being a heretic)
I agree about the taking the 9th seriously. (Remember who started this discussion out by calling Wilson a liar about decretal election. It wasn’t an FV person.) I don’t really care to deabte which charge is worse at this point.
2) You say Sean and Andy should be considered innocent of misrepresenting Pastor Wilson until they have been proven guilty.
But of course, if I thought they were innocent of something I wouldn’t have written to you in the first place. They are guilty because they have misrepresented him. If you want me to write out the many places where Pastor Wilson has clearly affirmed decretal election (contrary to Sean’s initial statements) so as to clearly demonstrate their guilt I’d be happy to do so, but I was under the impression you had already read RINE (among other things he’s written) and took him at his word when he said so. Seriously, what does Wilson have to do for you to actually believe him?
3) This is where it gets confusing…you also say Pastor Wilson isn’t guilty of confusing Sean and Andy so that they end up misrepresenting him UNLESS he affirms *any* of the ordo salutis as coming to the NECM. I’m glad to hear Pastor Wilson is not guilty of something, at least for now. Of course, it would be great if someone could actually produce such evidence where Wilson says NECM get ordo benefits in the same way ECM get ordo benefits. I see you saying you’ve never seen such evidence, and then you throw out that perhaps Sean and Andy G. have. Well perhaps they have, and perhaps they haven’t? So produce the evidence and then lets talk. Perhaps then we could say Sean and Andy G. have a right to be confused and a right to call Wilson on his contradiction. Or, perhaps then we can say they are full of it and should repent of calling Pastor Wilson a liar. But until then, they are the ones who are saying Wilson doesn’t believe what he has repeatedly said he does believe, and ignoring context to establish their claims.
At the end of all of this, I hear you saying you don’t know if Wilson has ever denied decretal election by somehow saying something improper about the benefits the a NECM gets, nor do you know if Sean or Andy has ever seen Wilson say something that would necessitate Wilson denying decretal election. So again I say, why the hesitation to simply say Wilson believes what he has always said he believes about decretal election?
greenbaggins said,
June 20, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I am perfectly willing to call on Sean and Andy to produce their evidence. It is a fair request. I have not accused Wilson of denying decretal election anywhere of which I am aware. Therefore, in my book, he is innocent on that until proven guilty. However, I am not the best-read person on Wilson’s theology ever to come down the pike. Of his theological books, I have only read RINE and his blog (and not all of that, either). So, I am not really in a position to condemn Sean and Andy. The reason I hesitate is that I have seen Wilkins affirm decretal election, and then completely undermine it with how he affirms covenantal election. With Wilkins, it is a bit like the Jehovah’s Witness who says “I believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus; why don’t you believe me when I say that?” It is because some other part of their theology contradicts it. I suggest that we let Sean, Andy and DW himself clarify this point. What do you say?
Andy Gilman said,
June 20, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Re #168 where Andy Dollohite says:
“You know it is true that Wilson believes and fully embraces decretal election as defined by the WCF.”
Can you show me where Wilson affirms that only the decretally elect enjoy union and communion with Christ, and where only the decretally elect are justified, sanctified and adopted? Maybe he says this somewhere, but I don’t recall seeing it. I’ve been looking for an FV proponent who will do this. If Wilson has done so, then I stand corrected regarding Wilson. But show me the quote or quit complaining.
And remember, the sophistry which says that the decretally reprobate are in union and communion with Christ “in some sense,” and then refuses to define the “sense,” does not count. If he is going to use words which contradict the confessions, then the onus is on him to explain the difference between his usage and the confessional usage.
A. Dollahite said,
June 20, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Andy Gillman,
First, I’ve let this slip a couple times, but my name is Andy Dollahite, not Dollohite. I’m sure it was unintentional.
With respect to Wilson’s affirmation of decretal election, it’s not my burden to show that he says he believes it in the exact phraseology you wish to see. You are the accuser, not me. Wilson says he believes in decretal election, and he’s been saying this for quite some time and in all manner of ways. It’s your burden to show that the many places he does speak about his affirmation of decretal election are not in fact what he claims them to be.
Furthermore, you might think it sophistry to qualify what you mean by certain words that have different meanings, but this is exactly the whole point. Different meanings don’t necessitate contradictory meanings. You don’t like that they haven’t figured out exactly in what sense things are qualitatively different. Since when does a failure to fully understand a biblical truth negate its truth. Can you fully define and explain the “sense” in which Jesus is fully God and fully man? I can’t, but I’m not wrong for proclaiming that truth. To ignore the fact that they have repeatedly pointed our their firm acceptance of a qualitative difference between NECM and ECM is to plug your ears and cover your eyes.
Well, I’ll put down some Wilson affirmations of decretal election for your consideration.
1) Regarding WCF 3:6 Wilson says, “If God has elected these (and only these) to salvation, then why pray, preach, or witness? The answer is that God does not just predestine the end, which is, for example, the salvation of Smith. He also predestined, as a necessary part of the whole process, the varied preconditions and means which were necessary to bring Smith to the point of salvation. These preconditions included being fallen in Adam, redeemed by Christ, and called and kept by the Holy Spirit. The elect have all the preconditions preordained for them, and those who are not elect do not participate in the foreordained salvific preconditions.” (RINE, p. 29)
2) “But, clean contrary to Waters’ assertions, I have taught in multiple places that there is an ontological difference between what the sincere believer experiences and what the hypocrite experiences. When the grace of God effectually converts one covenant member, enabling him to persevere in holiness subjectively experienced, and does not convert another in the same way, what else can you call it?
To pummel the point (if I may), I have taught (in very clear and divers ways) that the grace given to the decretally elect at the point of the effectual call is grace that is qualitatively different than the common operations of the Spirit enjoyed (for a season) by the unregenerate covenant member. I have heaped this point up in a rumpled pile and have danced around it, gesticulating with enthusiasm. I have made a big building out of this point, and put a blinking neon sign on top of it. If this point were an overpass, I have spray-painted my agreement with it in bright green letters at least eighteen inches high. With my white chef’s hat on, I have wheeled this point out of the kitchen on a cart, poured brandy all over it, and set it on fire. If the point were a pudding, I would have added three eggs beyond what the recipe called for. To summarize briefly, this is not something I have somehow neglected to say.” (Blog and Mablog, 7/26/07, “Three Extra Eggs in the Pudding”
3) “…decretal election is dependent in no way on membership in a local church. We are talking about decretal election, right? Decretal election cannot be lost, period. Baptism does not result ex opere quasimoto in personal regeneration. And our justification is not in any way “achieved” by any personal characteristics, ethical decisions, moral contributions, or boyish smiles we might try to come up with.” (Blog and Mablog, 6/11/07, “That He’d Been In His Bunk Below”
4) Responding to Rick Phillips, Wilson says, “The fact that I believe the Bible to teach that there is a fixed number of people to the decretally elect, which number cannot be augmented or diminished, just like Westminster teaches, does not obligate me to assert that every use of the word elect in the Bible has to carry the same decretal denotations and connotations.” (Blog and Mablog, 1/13/07, “A Response to Rick Phillips”
5) Responding to Scott Clark who said, “”Since the proponents of the so-called federal vision seem to affirm both an eternal, unconditional election and a historical, conditional election that can be lost without perseverance, it is difficult to see how they escape the strictures of the Synod of Dort on at least half their position”…
Wilson says, “This is simply astonishing. Clark would have a point if federal vision types affirmed eternal unconditional election and historical conditional election as applying to the same people in the same way. That would be an attempt at A/not A, and in such circumstances to highlight one of the contradictory principles is fair game. But we do nothing of the kind. decretal [sic] election applies to the elect, and only the decretally elect. Historical election applies to the Church in history, all the baptized. Where on earth can Clark find any kind of A/not A business in there?” (Blog and Mablog, 3/9/07, “Take the Grilled Cheese Sandwich Away”
6) “To see election through a covenant lens does not mean to define decretal election as though it were identical with covenant election. The fact of decretal election is affirmed by every FV spokesman that I know of, as indicated by the quote from Barach above. But we do not drag the decrees down into our understanding of history — we let God unfold His unchangeable decrees throughout the process of all history.” (Blog and Mablog, 7/26/06, “Three Extra Eggs in the Pudding”
7) Responding to the MARS report… (numbered statements belong to MARS, followed by Wilson’s response)
“39. that divine grace is resistible unto eternal damnation on the part of those who are elect, saved, forgiven, and united to Christ;
I hold that this is just crazy talk.
40. that the blood of Christ is not sufficient and efficacious in all for whom it was shed and applied, inasmuch as among those who enjoy forgiveness, justification, and reconciliation through Christ’s blood, some lose these blessings since they break the covenant and subsequently perish eternally;
I hold that the blood of Christ is absolutely efficacious, accomplishing everything that God intended for it to accomplish, including the securing of the salvation of those who are the decretally elect.
41. that there are two kinds of election — one unto temporary salvation, another unto eternal salvation;
I hold that this should have been #39. And I would have agreed with this one, just like Calvin did, except that the surrounding statements showed that this one was completely skewed.
42. that eternal election is conditional — namely only those are elect unto eternal salvation who continue in the way of covenant obedience and faithfulness, whereas those who are counted under the covenant and do not meet this condition enjoy genuinely saving but not eternally saving election;
I hold that the MARS faculty are representing us exactly backwards. The decretally elect are beneficaries of an unconditional decree on the part of God, which is the only reason why they are saved.” (Blog and Mablog, 5/21/07, “Testimony on the MARS Testimony”
Glenn said,
June 20, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Lane, thanks for the reply. Did you have any thoughts about the “true church” language? I was just looking for a simple yes or no answer. I’m not looking to debate it. I just don’t remember your view on it if you have said it before.
Also, you said >>what makes assurance of salvation into something whereby we may know the hope that shall *never* make them ashamed, and in which we are sealed unto the day of redemption (WCF 18.1-2)? It says plainly there that we can full assurance of *final* and complete salvation, not just assurance that we are in right now.
Andy Gilman said,
June 20, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Re #176, Andy Dollahite said:
[BOQ]
Andy Gillman,
First, I’ve let this slip a couple times, but my name is Andy Dollahite, not Dollohite. I’m sure it was unintentional.
[EOQ]
You are correct, it was certainly unintentional, as I suppose your mispelling of my last name was also unintentional.
Andy Gilman said,
June 20, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Re #176:
This makes my point. Andy Dollahite cannot find an example where Wilson will forthrightly tell us that union and communion with Christ is limited to the decretally elect. Why is this so difficult to get the FV advocates to do? It is clearly the confessional position.
You may not like the word “sophistry,” but that’s what it is. Wilson can SAY a thousand times that he accepts the confessional teachings regarding decretal election; but if he contradicts the confessional description of the decretally elect, by saying that all who are baptized are in union and communion with Chirst, his affirmations are not believable.
To use another example, if someone affirms the confessional teaching on regeneration, but refuses to acknowledge that the corruption of nature remains in the regenerate during this life, his affirmation is meaningless. If he cites five examples of confessional propositions about regeneration that he agrees with, and then dances on the table proclaiming his agreement with the confession, while at the same time refusing to affirm what the confession says about the corruption of nature, he is not in agreement with the confessional teaching.
A. Dollahite said,
June 20, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Andy Gilman,
Well, at least we can spell our first names correctly. My apologies for my oversight, especially considering I shared the predicament.
It seems to me that you aren’t willing to acknowledge different uses of the same word that are not inherently contradictory. Union and communion can be used is various senses. As I’ll go on to point out later, many of your fellow FV critics here have pointed out previously that there hell bound people who are in union with Christ…a union that to them is stictly external. External, but union nevertheless. Are they denying decretal election if they say that someone who is bound for Hell is in an external union with Christ? Of course not, because you and I are ready and willing to acknowledge that they are describing a different type of union than that an elect person shares with Christ.
I think I provided plenty of evidence that Wilson believes and adheres to the common definition of decretal election. You want exact phraseology. Sorry, that’s not a burden I bear. However, in essence you want him to say that union and communion with Christ are only limited to the decretally elect. If you are defining union and communion as a perfectly salvific union and communion, then I think I did provide such an example. The very first quote I provided says, “The elect have all the preconditions preordained for them, and those who are NOT ELECT DO NOT participate in the foreordained SALVIFIC preconditions.” (RINE, p. 29). Wilson is quite clear that when it comes to someone who is ultimately bound for Heaven, God foreordains everything to bring them to Heaven in a way that He does not for a non-elect person. That foreordination would include union and communion. That is, the elect have a union and communion with Christ that is unique to them. It doesn’t take a very charitable reading to see that Wilson has been consistently affirming this.
What you clearly seem to be denying, and what Wilson and others have stipulated that seems to be so upsetting to you, is that there is some kind of union that a non-elect covenant member does have with Christ, that is real, but is not ultimately salvific. This is more than just upsetting to you, it’s repulsive. (Perhaps I’ve over stated that, so correct me if I’m wrong.) It’s much more convenient to just have two categories of people - elect and nonelect. Ultimately this is true, but historically the picture is not so distinct, and the Bible seems to indicate in many places that there are people who share a temporary relationship with the Lord. Many people around here have spent countless words debating the exact nature of this relationship. Some people want to maintain that there are people who are only externally in union with Christ (of course, there’s that tricky word union), and who only share in the common grace extended to pagans and Christians alike. Biblically, to me at least, this doesn’t seem to do complete justice to the texts of scripture that describe apostasy and new covenant membership. But the debate over whether genuine apostasy exists is not new to this generation. It has been around for centuries. As you well know, this debate is based on numerous texts of the Bible that indicate a genuine union with Christ that ultimately fails because of unbelief (John 15, 1 Cor. 10, much of Hebrews, 2 Peter 2, just to name a few of the major ones). I’m sure you would agree with Wilson that the fact that this union fails to bring ultimate salvation is just as foreordained as the union that brings about ultimate salvation. God is still sovereign, and His glory is being displayed in both circumstances. What I’m arguing, and Wilson has been arguing, and many others have been arguing, is that it is perfectly consistent to say that these two unions are different types of unions, ontologically/qualitatively, without abandoning a classical affirmation of decretal election. To my recollection there have been many fine Christian men who have debated the implications of these passages, all the while holding to a firm conviction of decretal election.
Finally, I continue to remind you that you are the one responsible for demonstrating Wilson’s denial of decretal election. You are the accuser of Pastor Wilson, and you continue to bear the burden of that accusation. Lane suggested earlier that it would be good for you or Sean to produce evidence wherein Wilson gives ECM benefits to a NECM in the same sense. I’m ready to consider any evidence you may have.
Geoff said,
June 20, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Ok, there are some theological big-boys on this thread, but let me put a few comments in the mix.
1) 1 John gives the basis for assurance. Baptism isn’t mentioned. Many things are listed and it does involve introspection, but the book mitigates against morbid introspection.
2) The covenant faithfulness language is problematic because you have to ask how faithful do I need to be. But the paradigm from Scripture is best described as justified by faith alone which produces good works and faithfulness, but not perfection. Those good works are evidence of genuine faith. If you say you are without sin, you are a liar. If you walk in darkness and claim to be a believer, you are a liar.
The above description seems to me to be the best description of the Biblical message. The “covenant faithfulness” language confuses me. If the covenant is one of grace, (really, really gracious; not gracious like the Adamic covenant where Adam sinned and is in deep trouble) drawing that line is incredibly problematic? If faithfulness is an evidence instead of a condition, that makes much more sense.
Anne Ivy said,
June 20, 2007 at 11:59 pm
“Some people want to maintain that there are people who are only externally in union with Christ (of course, there’s that tricky word union), and who only share in the common grace extended to pagans and Christians alike.”
You called?
As for the “tricky word union”, allowing “union” to be used in any other sense than true, irreversible union with Christ is a compromise with FV’ers for the sake of moving the discussion along. Push come to shove, it’s still y’all’s preferred term for those only in the visible Church, and not mine. To be civil and agreeable I’ll not squawk about it, but frankly, I don’t like it and don’t believe it’s especially accurate.
“Biblically, to me at least, this doesn’t seem to do complete justice to the texts of scripture that describe apostasy and new covenant membership.”
Naturally, it’s a pity you’re tripped up by those texts as they have been traditionally interpreted by Reformed theologians, but aside from that I’d point out the strict-divide viewpoint regarding the elect and everyone else does do complete justice to other texts, such as Romans 8:1: “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
As a clear, forthright, straightforward statement of theological fact this can’t be beat. For those “who are in Christ Jesus”, there is now no condemnation. For those who are not in Christ Jesus, there is.
Notice the total absense of qualifiers or modifiers. No “for those who are in Christ Jesus in some sense“. No “for those who will be found to be in Christ Jesus [at judgment].”
Either one is “in Christ Jesus” or one is not.
Unless one is an FV’er, in which case someone can, in stark contrast to that verse, both be “in Christ Jesus” and under condemnation.
Xon said,
June 21, 2007 at 8:17 am
Andy G. I hope you’re noticing that Andy D. is making the very same points I made with you a couple of months ago. It’s so nice to not be alone! (Generation X…affirm me, affirm me)
Okay, Anne, but since you’re willing to not “squawk” about it, then what you are saying is that you are willing to stop calling FVers heretics/unorthodox on this issue. This concession you make is something that apparently Andy G. is not willing to make, for instance.
Wait, so now you are taking it back? Either you believe that one can use the word “union” to refer to a relationship the non-elect have with Jesus, or you don’t.
anneivy said,
June 21, 2007 at 8:30 am
I never have called FV’ers heretics, except in the sense of being out of step with the PCA’s system of theology. IOW, it’s heresy in relation to the PCA, not heresy in relation to Christianity as a whole.
As a rule - barring the fringe element in the FV - I don’t see the FV as being noticeably worse, theologically, than Arminianism. It’s not Reformed, but then heaven is not reserved for only Reformed believers.
The reprobate in the Church are like ticks or tapeworms…”united” to the body, but not a part of it.
I’ve not gotten the impression that’s exactly the type of warm, fuzzy “united” the FV has in mind, though.
But that’s the way I’m willing to acknowledge NECM are “united” to the body of Christ on the earth….as parasites.
Xon said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:03 am
No, you’re right to say that your notion of “united” and the FV notion of “united” are different, Anne. There is a disagreement here, though I can’t for the life of me see why it rises to the level of either side being unReformed.
But what I am pointing out is that, if you affirm any sense of “united” for NECMs at all, then what do we do with your other claim that “Either one is “in Christ Jesus” or one is not.”?
The problem I am trying to point out is that it seems like there are two different criticisms of FV here, and you can’t advance them both simultaneously, but you seem to be trying both of them out at