The Visible/Invisible Church Distinction, Again
June 22, 2007 at 11:47 am (Federal Vision)
In response to Wilson’s latest, I will say three quick things. Firstly, my argument was not that law and holiness were identical. They don’t have to be identical for my analogy to work. My point is that just as justice/holiness and mercy/love are equally ultimate in the mind of God, so also would those attributes manifest themselves on earth in equally ultimate categories. Those categories are Law and Gospel. Just as we could have no relationship with God unless He voluntarily condescended to reveal Himself to us, so also that relationship would be undefinable without the law. The basic relationship is defined by law. So, I do not (and actually didn’t say) have to say that law and holiness are identical. My point is that equal ultimacy in God means that God will reveal Himself as that kind of God, leaving no attribute behind or overshadowed by any other attribute. The characteristics of Scripture mirror the divine attributes.
Secondly, I am surprised that Wilson would not affirm the language of eternal life being dependent on personal and perfect obedience, since I was self-consciously using the language of WCF 7.2: “wherein (the covenant of works, LK) life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience” (emphasis added). I wasn’t trying to pull any trick here. But this is the language of the WS, which Wilson professes to uphold. Does he not agree with WCF 7.2?
I don’t think that it is all that profitable to keep on talking about the vote. The fact of the matter is that it passed, and we need to examine the fall-out from this decision of GA. As good Calvinists (I think this point has already been made), we need to acknowledge that it was God’s will not only that the report passed, but also by the margin it did pass. I do think that one’s view of Sproul’s comments will depend on which side of the fence one is on. But I think that it is completely unprovable what level of knowledge people had about the report. But others have commented that the presentation of the report was an admirable summary of the issues. The declarations and recommendations were all read aloud to the assembly and each one was discussed in the introducation, so that no one can claim that these other issues were not on the table. The whole report was passed.
Now, to continue on to the Visible/Invisible Church distinction. This has already been dealt with rather decisively in this post. I would perhaps point out that Wilson now believes that the historical/eschatological distinction is not the same distinction as the visible/invisible. I am not sure that he was thinking that when he penned pages 73-74 of RINE. But as he has acknowledged that those pages were not the most clearly written pages of the book, I will let the matter pass.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
Robert K. said,
June 22, 2007 at 1:00 pm
On R. Scott Clark’s blog, when it had comments, Wilson engaged in some debate about the visible/invisible Church and his historical/eschatological thing, and in the course of thinking out loud it was revealed he’d not ever checked to see what Berkhof had said on the subject. I mean, fine, maybe Berkhof was never his first reach when looking for a Reformed ST take on a point of doctrine, but…this is a guy who is in the midst of revising Reformed Theology…
scott cunningham said,
June 22, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Lane wrote, “As good Calvinists (I think this point has already been made), we need to acknowledge that it was God’s will not only that the report passed, but also by the margin it did pass.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you saying we should infer God’s intent and personal opinions about the outcome of the vote based on the vote itself? We know that God foreordained the outcome in advance, and the margin at which the Report was approved. But can we really interpret the outcome to mean that God approved of it? That seems to go beyond espousing foreordination. There are many instances in which an outcome happens which is objectively wrong. To claim providence isn’t the same as proving God’s approval of the outcome? I’m thinking of the passage in the gospels where someone asks Jesus what sin a person did to deserve what happened to them, and Jesus recounts what happens in a nearby town in which a stone tower fell and killed many people. It happened, and it was ordained, but that’s not permission for us to infer anything about the meaning itself. There’s still a world in which human responsibility can lead to bad outcomes.
That’s not to say the ruling of the session in favor of the report was a bad outcome. I’m just noting that it seems mistaken to interpret God’s will simply because it passed. God’s will is that we act responsibility with diligent prayer and wisdom.
greenbaggins said,
June 22, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I’m not saying what you think I’m saying. It seems to me that the FV is questioning God’s providence in decreeing that the report pass (which God did, since it happened). Why are they “crying over spilled milk?” Are their protestations going to change anything? My point is not about God’s approval, but about our response. Instead of moaning and groaning about the vote, the FV should be considering what this means for them.
A. Dollahite said,
June 22, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Lane,
If you think people associated with the FV are “questioning God’s providence…”, then I suggest you rethink your position after reading what they’ve said about the report. Acceptance of God’s providence has never been questioned by FV proponents (I’d be interested to see where you got such an impression). Here’s one sample to show my point.
“And last, Jesus the Lord is not only sovereign over the details of each of our individual lives, He is also sovereign over the course of all history. He is the Head of the Church, and so this includes church history, which in its turn includes denominational histories. If we are His servants, and we are, then we can trust Him with what He is doing here. Someone once said that the advancement of the kingdom of God is a long series of spectualar victories cleverly disguised as disasters. In our local church, here at Christ Church, when I became a paedobaptist in the early nineties, some of the things that happened in that mess were among the most difficult events of my life. But looking back at them, I can see now that I did not have the eyes to see exactly how much God was blessing our congregation. In other words, the greatest trials were the greatest blessings. Gold is heavy, and hard to carry. This is God’s way, and He loves to do it this way. We do not know what the future holds, as the hymn says, but we know who holds the future” (Doug Wilson, Blog and Mablog, 6/13/07).
greenbaggins said,
June 22, 2007 at 4:51 pm
And yet, look at Wilson’s last post. What good will it do to continue to state that the deck was stacked? Is he going to convince anyone of it? Question to Wilson: was the composition of the study committee somehow outside the providence of God?
A. Dollahite said,
June 22, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Lane,
Is your question to Wilson serious? Do you honestly expect him to answer no? As a compatiblist you know God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are both true and noncontradictory. God can ordain, and we are still held responsible. Wilson isn’t inconsistent to believe that God is still provident in all things, and then point out the errors men should be held accountable for. Did the apostles doubt God’s providence by continually pointing out that the Jewish leaders and the Roman government unrighteously put Jesus to death?
greenbaggins said,
June 22, 2007 at 5:15 pm
But like I said, is he going to convince anyone of it? The logic goes like this: the stacked-deck issue was more than discussed in the motion to postpone, since Novenson’s substitute motion included adding to the committee two more members sympathetic to the FV. That means that the defeat of the motion (by about 2/3-3/4 majority) means that those people did not consider the deck to be stacked. Again, he cannot claim objective fact status with such a claim, given the vote itself.
By the way, I’m not sure that you should be using analogies that cast the majority of the PCA into the role of the Roman government/Jewish leaders, and the FV in the role of Jesus. You think it was wrong. That is your opinion. But it is not fact. It is interpretation. Let’s make sure that we remember that.
A. Dollahite said,
June 22, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Lane,
Firstly, and just to be clear, I don’t in any way view the PCA as the Roman gov’t, ect. That wasn’t my point. I was talking about compatibilism, and I don’t think you really answered the spirit of my question.
Secondly, you’re jumping around here from suggesting that Wilson and others in the FV don’t really believe in the providence of God, to saying his approach regarding the committee really isn’t that pragmatic. You might not think he’ll convince anyone, but that’s completely different than saying Wilson denies/doubts the providence of God. And for the record, I haven’t seen one place where and FV person has said something the effect of, “God’s gone crazy… what’s the heck is God thinking… how could God even think about letting the PCA report pass.” Those are the kind of statements that might indicate doubting God’s providence.
Finally, regarding your argument about the nature of the committee, I hear you saying this:
1. The substitute motion suggested balancing the committee to provide a broader range of views. (The implication being the committee was unbalanced)
2. The substitute motion was voted down (by a large number).
3. Therefore the committee wasn’t stacked.
Look, I’m not even going to get into any kind of debate about the stacked/unstacked nature of the committee. But to be honest (in my opinion) that argument as I understand it is really weak. For those of us (you included) who have ever participated in a large body where Robert’s Rules are used, and motions are being debated, and many issues are involved, it’s a gross oversimplification to say that every issue is being weighted equally in the final vote. There’s no way to tell how many of the people who voted against the motion might have actually agreed the committee was indeed unbalanced, or how many who voted for the substitute motion thought the committee was balanced, but wanted to see things added to the report. You can’t treat all the issues separately and then say each was viewed precisely as the vote turned out… i.e. 2/3 of the GA thought the committee was balanced.
Michael Saville said,
June 22, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I don’t think that anyone would question that what happened was the will of God (in the decretive sense)–yet this does not make it right. The point is the process was improper. No one would want to be treated as the FV men were treated by the Study Committee process (no representation on the committee/no direct consultation). Even if the GA made the right decision theologically, it would still not justify the process that was employed.
thomasgoodwin said,
June 22, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Michael,
Well, 90% (plus?) of the TE’s/RE’s, or thereabouts, disagree with you. I don’t think you need to orally (I assume this is what you meant by “direct communication”
communicate with someone to deal with their views fairly.
Certainly Owen and Calvin didn’t always have direct communication with those they interacted with, both friends and foes! Haven’t the FV guys written enough to allow themselves to be understood? If I want to make a point on an issue, the best thing I can do is write down, as clearly as possible, my thoughts. I would much rather this than someone speaking to me. Then it becomes “he said/she said”; but when done in writing, it is there for all to see. And, of course, the FV crowd is “out of accord with the WCF”. Almost every single Reformed Protestant denomination in North America has said so. I even have friends (yes, they are brother’s in Christ and not heretics IMO; a position of mine that isn’t too popular with some of my TR friends) who are deeply sympathetic to FV theology who admit that the historical and confessional arguments of the FV are weak. Therefore, it makes no sense to admit them to the study committee and, surprise, surprise, not many in the PCA felt persuaded by your argument. You make it sound all so obviously unfair, when, in fact, it wasn’t.
Incidentally, however, I had spoken to two of the members on the committee long before they were appointed and I knew their feelings towards the FV. Their conclusions didn’t surprise me one bit! Perhaps FV sympathizers will zero in on this as evidence they were doomed from the beginning. But no one force the rest of the PCA to vote in favor of what the committee had reported.
Sincerely,
Mark Jones
Michael Saville said,
June 22, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Mark, well, you may be fine with people just examining your writings. I can say personally that if it were my views being examined by my presbytery, I would want to be able to interact with the presbytery at the personal level to ensure greater clarity. This might have made the committee’s task more difficult, but there is nothing wrong with going the extra mile for the sake of the bretheren (especially those who are in good standing).
I didn’t see that happening with this committee process, and I’m honestly surprised that more people are not grieved by it. Unfortunately, people seem to be justifying the process because it achieved the desired result.
scott cunningham said,
June 22, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Lane wrote: “And yet, look at Wilson’s last post. What good will it do to continue to state that the deck was stacked? Is he going to convince anyone of it? Question to Wilson: was the composition of the study committee somehow outside the providence of God?”
There’s nothing about belief in providence that requires a person to interpret last week one way or another. It’s consistent to believe in Providence and human responsibility. For instance, I can believe in Providence, and still demand votes to be recounted in an election. That’s all I see Wilson doing in speaking continually about the procedure itself.
scott cunningham said,
June 22, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Also, one more thing. Can I request that a short glossary be produced and posted on the left somewhere as to what the various acronyms mean (eg, NECM, ECM and RINE). I figured out what NECM and ECM meant, but I still can’t figure out RINE. Personally, following this debate (particularly Lane and Xon, as well as Lane and Barlow) has helped me the most in trying to understand what is really at stake in the FV controversy, and I bet if people were willing to do like I’ve done and actually read all the comments in all these posts, they’d also feel that way. But, since this is apparently an ongoing conversation between you and Xon, it might be useful to post a quick glossary of the important non-obvious terms? Thanks, again, for really giving FV theologians something with which to wrestle, and to do with clarity, reason, evidence, but willingness to argue directly with these people. It’s a real public good, or at least, it’s something I benefit from.
A. Dollahite said,
June 22, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Mark,
One small point that I keep seeing come up… this idea of oral interviews/reports turning into a “he said/she said” as you put it. I believe even Dr. Fowler used that as an explanation for a lack of personal contact with FV people. The whole problem could have been fixed quite easily with the use a simple recording device. Just play back the tape as many times as necessary. You could even make a printed transcript. I think the greater point in the discussion about written/oral, contact/no contact, is what would have demonstrated a commitment to the greatest amount of understanding from the committee. Imagine your views were under study by a group of people, whose report would be very influential. Wouldn’t you have appreciated that the committee at least contact you personally before issuing a very negative report of your supposed position? Remember, this report affects people who are in good standing within the PCA.
A. Dollahite said,
June 22, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Scott,
RINE = Reformed Is Not Enough, a book by Douglas Wilson.
David Cassidy said,
June 22, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Lane,
One doesn’t question God’s providence in concluding that Jospeh’s brothers acted sinfully in terms of God’s revealed will when they rid themselves of their brother according to God’s secret, decretive will. To ask whether or not what occured in any given circumstance is ’sinful’ or ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘wise’ or ‘folly’ does not question God’s oversight and governance of all things.
A more immediate question would be, given the passage of the Report’s reecommendations, is the PCA likely to budge any time soon from the decision the GA has made? Would you agree that such a course is exceedingly unlikely?
Understanding this puts the emphasis where it needs to be: further reflection and study on the report and the theological questions it seeks to address, and so on. Some may wish to continue the debate on the issues, interacting with the Report’s various strengths and/or weaknesses. To do so does not question Providence; it accepts it and takes hold of the opportunity Providence has provided for study and appropriate decisions.
David C. Moody said,
June 22, 2007 at 9:35 pm
For what it’s worth, here’s my two cents. Doug Wilson has written extensively on Christian education and theology regarding Christian families. He is extremely well known for these things. He has recently written a book for American Vision critiquing Sam Harris’s book “Letter to a Christian Nation.” American Vision wants Doug Wilson’s book to get as large a hearing as possible. Doug Wilson is highly respected within his denomination, and outside of his denomination. I went to an OPC church for about a year, and of the six families that went to that church, three had multiple books from Doug Wilson. The same could be said for most of the hardcore Reformed young families who are looking for a proper understanding of the family and a better education for their children.
All of this is to say: God has given Doug Wilson a far-reaching influence within the Reformed world. When he says that the committee was stacked, a great many of the younger members of the Reformed churches in America will believe him. Is Doug Wilson going to convince anyone that an injustice was done? You’d better believe it. Especially since his claims can be verified.
thomasgoodwin said,
June 22, 2007 at 10:09 pm
A. Dollahite & Michael,
And who precisely should they have phoned? Just the PCA guys, or anyone who has written promulgating FV views? And how many times should they phone? And how long should they talk to them on the phone? The problem is that we have to draw the line somewhere.
Welcome to the publishing world, brothers. You publish, you get critiqued. It’s a serious thing to publish views that might be controversial and they knew full well what they were doing. Imagine that everyone who critiqued a book, article, etc. had to have personal conversations with the person they critiqued! Noble idea. But totally impractical. Maybe Socinus didn’t deserve a “phone call” from Owen, but what about Baxter? Or, what about when Bunyan entertained eternal justification and Owen had to straighten him out? Where do you draw the line on who is “worthy” of a phone call?
The bottom line is that some of the FV guys are, in places, out of accord with the WS and the PCA needed to affirm the true teaching of the confession. They didn’t need a full-blown exegetical report. They already have one!
And these sentiments above come from someone who has benefited a great deal from many of the FV writers, esp. Peter Leithart. And I would happily sit under his preaching. But that you seem to imply they needed a fair hearing when so much of their writing flatly contradicts the WS - makes me wonder why you both feel they are so hard done by.
Sincerely,
Mark Jones
Michael Saville said,
June 23, 2007 at 12:17 am
Mark,
We are going to have to just disagree here. The Assembly asked for a committee to study the FV with respect to our Standards. However, the whole committee process appears to have been carried out to deliver a predetermined verdict. The optics of this simply aren’t very good. I can’t believe that anyone would have accepted a committee stacked this way if the issue were creation or subscription.
Certainly, we can’t always have personal interaction with our critics. Still, when it comes to brothers who are minsters in our own church (especially those being explicitly critiqued like Wilkins and Leithart) it doesn’t seem too much of a burden to interact personally with them, and to seek their feedback to ensure that they are being heard and read properly. That just seems like basic brotherly love and kindness–especially considering this was an ecclesiastical report.
That the FV ministers are contradicting the Standards may seem obvious to you, but it certainly is not obvious to everyone (It certainly isn’t to me!). This is evidenced by the fact that all the better known FV men in the PCA remain in good standing in their presbyteries–even after further investigation has been done. A couple of years ago, Peter Leithart was examined by my own presbytery a couple of years back, and he remains in good standing here.
Blessings,
Michael
thomasgoodwin said,
June 23, 2007 at 1:18 am
Michael,
If Leithart is not contradicting the Standards and the FV committee is merely upholding Westminster orthodoxy, then why do you have a problem with the committee’s report?
Shouldn’t Leithart be saying a hearty ‘Amen’ to the report if he is in line with the Westminster Standards as you suggest? The only other alternative is that the committee is out of line with the WS which means, in effect, most of the PCA is as well judging by their vote (and then we have very serious problems).
Regards,
Mark
Michael Saville said,
June 23, 2007 at 2:15 am
Mark,
Another possibility is that those on the committee were interpreting the Standards too narrowly so as to rule out views that are also in accord with the Standards. It would be like a group of amillennialist saying that postmillennialism is out of accord with the Standards. In fact, while amillennialism and postmillennialism cannot both be correct, both are consistent with Westminster. It is possible that the committee men have construed the Standards too narrowly even while they are faithful to Westminster in their own doctrine. If this is the case, then it is certainly understandable that the FV men would confess fidelity to the Standards even while disagreeing with the report.
And yes, I do believe it was an unfortunate mistake for the assembly to adopt the declarations of the report. One reason is that I think that they are too ambiguous and unclear in their wording to be of any real value.
Blessings,
Michael
thomasgoodwin said,
June 23, 2007 at 10:31 am
Michael,
The standards don’t have a thoroughgoing eschatology, which is fortunate because the Puritans had horrible eschatology. But, I think there is a big difference between being able to have differing views on eschatology and having different views on justification, assurance, etc. We’re talking, as you know, about the vitals of religion, not what the number 666 refers to.
I’m not even that opposed to Leithart and company. It’s just I believe the PCA is a confessional church and its ecclesiology demands that people who stray from it should move elsewhere. That’s Presbyterianism! That said, there’s plenty of others who should go because of what they don’t say!
Blessings,
Mark
Michael Saville said,
June 23, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Mark,
I agree that eschatology is not to the same level as these issues; I was just using it to make the point that our Standards do allow for some diversity of views. I think there is room for some disagreement on issues such as the nature of the covenant of works (would we not allow both John Murray and Meredith Kline?), and the mechanics of how imputation occurs, and the issue of covenant conditions (among other things).
The issue is how much diversity is permitted. I have trouble sending the FV men out all the while we tolerate a sub-confessional (and nearly baptistic) view of the Sacraments, Sonship theology (at least in its more extreme forms), and all manner of things in our worship services. If the FV is out of accord, it is minor by comparison.
Blessings,
Michael
thomasgoodwin said,
June 23, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Michael,
And that is why I have refrainef from calling them heretics or their theology heretical. Personally, I don’t see how we can say someone has heretical theology and still call them brothers in Christ. I agree also that there are some serious problems in the PCA that have nothing to do with the PCA.
It’s also difficult because not every FV advocate has the same mind on all the issues, though it is strange that they never publicly critique each other. But, at the same time, I’m still convinced that certain FV doctrines are definitely out of accord with the WS whereas some of their doctrines are not in clear violation of the WS.
But I suspect that is where we’ll have to disagree. You seem to suggest that all that comes from the FV is consistent with the WS, whereas I say *some* of what they teach is not. We could get specific, of course. But, we probably both don’t have the time.
Blessings,
Mark
thomasgoodwin said,
June 23, 2007 at 1:37 pm
refrained not “refrainef”