The Trinity and Postmillenialism
August 1, 2007 at 11:13 am (Federal Vision)
Clark, Stellman, and Mattes have all started their reviews of the FV document, and they are already ahead of me. I don’t have a whole lot to add to their points, actually.
On the Trinity, I would fervently agree that we must approach all the loci of theology allowing the doctrine of the Trinity to inform it. We interpret the Bible in a Trinitarian fashion. With regard to the Trinity’s relationship to covenant, I am listening, but one single sentence is not enough to give me a context here. There are excellent articles in CJPM and in BFA that ground the covenant of works and the covenant of grace in the pactum salutis. Since the pactum salutis is most definitely an inner-Trinitarian covenant, I could agree with the statement if that is where they are going with it. However, I suspect that it is in the direction of Ralph Smith’s book that they are going. If that is the case, then Clark’s points are to the point here.
On postmillenialism, all (or almost all) Presbyterian and Reformed denominations have declared that postmillenialism falls within the bounds of orthodoxy. Hey, my father is postmillenial (and definitely against the FV). They can hold a post-mil position, and I care not one iota, except that I think that amil is more faithful to the Scriptural record. But eschatology proper is not something by which I am going to define orthodoxy. I might also point out that it is quite possible to be an amil and still believe that the knowledge of Jesus Christ will fill the earth as the waters cover the seas. I do believe that. And I don’t even necessarily believe that it is referring to the time-period after Christ comes back. I just don’t believe that there is going to be a golden age before Christ comes back. There will be lots more Christians and lots more persecution before Christ comes back. That is my opinion, and that is how I read the texts. But I do not define orthodoxy by this standard.
Federal Vision Statement Analysis - Part 2 « Reformed Musings said,
August 1, 2007 at 12:35 pm
[...] I just found that Green Baggins has published his thoughts on the Trinity and Postmil paragraphs of the joint FV statement. I still [...]
Puritan Lad said,
August 1, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Chalk me up as a Postmill who is anti-FV.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 1, 2007 at 1:50 pm
It’s funny, we hear so much about the so-called “optimistic amillennialists” of the Tim Keller stripe, I think it’s time to declare myself a pessimistic postmillennialist.
Who’s with me?!
pduggan said,
August 1, 2007 at 2:48 pm
What *was* Clark’s point about Smith?
It seemed to be “I don’t know what to make of Smith, except he’s doing things I don’t recognize”
reformedmusings said,
August 1, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Puritan Lad,
The last I heard, Dr. R. C. Sproul also fit that description. Looks like you have good company.
pduggan said,
August 1, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I dunno, reformedmusings, that was back when the proto-FV guys were all working for tabletalk and beamed their anti-imputation rays all over Sproul Jr, causing Sproul Sr to affirm preterism, of all things…
You shoulda seen Boice squirm when that happened…
tim prussic said,
August 1, 2007 at 4:07 pm
pduggan, I’d like to understand the history of your post #6 a bit better. I’m failing to see the connection ‘twixt the beaming of anti-imputation rays (?) and a casue for an othrodox preterism.
Everyone else (& pduggan, too), it might be worth considering another historical line that seems, at least to me, to make a bit more sense. FV draws a ton on Reconstructionism and theonomy. Specifically, there’s a good deal of Jordan, North, Bahnsen and others in Wilson, Leithart, Schlissel et al. I’m not real interested in “seeds” of the odious FV errors comments, but I do see a connection at least in areas of eschatology, ethics, and general worldview (Van Til).
This is honesly my entrance into the FV controversy. In seminary, I read a lot of North, Bahnsen, Van Til and Gentry (not to mention other postmils like the Princeton Boys and Edwards), and I went to a pre-mil seminary!
That reminds me, does anyone know where Ken Gentry stands on the various FV issues?
reformedmusings said,
August 1, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Hi pduggan,
Actually, Dr. Sproul, Sr., only affirmed partial preterism as a subset of his newly-found post-millennialism at the time. His book The Last Days According to Jesus refuted the full preterism of Russell. I think that RC became too enamored with Gentry and his theories at the time.
To be honest, I haven’t tried to ascertain Dr. Sproul’s current eschatological leanings. He once mussed that he was really a pan-millennialist at heart-that it would all pan out in the end.
As for Sproul, Jr., I never much cared for him. In my opinion after watching him off and on for a number of years, he lacks the discipline and rigor of his father, along with the temperament or maturity to lead anyone. I don’t feel so alone in that assessment since that also became the opinion of the RPCGA, who eventually defrocked him for cause, not theology. Being the son of a well-respected dad only gets you so far in the real world.
reformedmusings said,
August 1, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Hi tim,
You’re stealing my next blog post. Cut it out already!
pduggan said,
August 1, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Tim:
I was mostly farcical in my claims in #6. But I don’t doubt that FV guys were influential in pushing Sproul into preterism, possibly via his son.
Puritan Lad said,
August 1, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Most FVer’s are of the Reconstructionist mold, but not all Reconstructionists are FVers’. I would guess that Bahnsen would have rejected FV. He wasn’t one to monkey around with Justification by faith.
pduggan said,
August 1, 2007 at 4:18 pm
reformedmusings:
“Actually”?
Nothing I said contradicts what you wrote. I said Sproul embraced preterism. The non-perjorative term should be used for the correct doctrine, and “hyperpreterism” for the heresy. Gentry has been close to Jordan for years, speaking at his conferences, etc.
tim prussic said,
August 1, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Mr. Lad, I’m quite sympathetic with the FV and I’m not interested in to monkey around with sola fide, either. There’s been A LOT of dialogue between FV proponents and others about justification. That is by no means a hallmark of FV. It’s tauted as such, I think, because it’s an easy win. And anyway, SOME of the FV guys are messing around with it, so it’s easy to point to a couple and then paint them all, but that would be unfair and, honestly, dishonest.
As far as Bahnsen, hehe… it’s difficult to say!
James Jordan said,
August 1, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Bahnsen was a totally devoted follower of Norman Shepherd all the time that I knew him. And Bahnsen NEVER changed his mind about ANYTHING.
James Jordan said,
August 1, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Bahnsen was thoroughly devoted to Norman Shepherd and his teaching on justification the whole time I knew him, and Bahnsen NEVER changed his mind on ANYTHING.
James Jordan said,
August 1, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Sorry about the duplication. I thought the first had been obliterated.
reformedmusings said,
August 1, 2007 at 5:15 pm
pduggan,
I didn’t mean anything by my “Actually?” I just like transition words, probably too much. I was just making conversation. I’m sorry if my opening of the comment caused you consternation. I didn’t intend that at all.
Interesting about Gentry and Jordan.
John said,
August 1, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Paul wrote: “Gentry has been close to Jordan for years, speaking at his conferences, etc.”
I don’t think this is actually the case, Paul. DeMar spoke at one of the Biblical Horizons conferences, but Gentry hasn’t. Moreover, Biblical Horizons catalogue doesn’t list anything by Gentry, but does include a paper by Mark Horne responding to Gentry’s critique of paedocommunion.
Vern Crisler said,
August 1, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Partial preterism was advocated by Greg Bahnsen in his lectures on Revelation. He is the primary source for this view (correct IMO). Sproul, Chilton, and other preterists “stole” Greg’s thunder, so to speak. Probably because he never got around to publishing his commentary.
Bahnsen would have opposed FV, I’m sure, but his son thinks, and claims, differently, though without providing the promised evidence yet.
Vern
James Jordan said,
August 1, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Bahnsen was totally with Shepherd on justification. Bahnsen did not like paedocommunion. Bahnsen was Vantillian, and that’s 90% of FV. Bahnsen thought merit theology and the covenant of works were ridiculous. Bahnsen would have distanced himself from FV because of the people involved, like myself, who had been attacked by him in the past. I knew Bahnsen personally for many years, worked with him, and was his personal friend until he got out of sorts with people in Tyler over other matters. Anyone who dreams that Bahnsen would have opposed Shepherd is living in fairyland. Bahnsen was thoroughly with Murray and Shepherd and thoroughly anti-Klinean as regards Kline’s legalistic views on salvation.
As for partial preterism, Bahnsen was following Jay Adams’s book hook, line, and sinker. Rushdoony reprinted Kik’s works. The notion that anybody stole Bahnsen’s thunder is ludicrous. I was there during all these years. Bahnsen made his contribution, but only a contribution.
Paul confuses Gentry with DeMar, as John points out.
pduggie said,
August 1, 2007 at 8:22 pm
15: John
My bad. I confused DeMar and Gentry
Joint Federal Vision Statement Analysis - Part 3 « Reformed Musings said,
August 1, 2007 at 8:34 pm
[...] other fronts, Lane at Green Baggins continues his analysis of the joint statement by considering the Trinitarian and post-millennial [...]
pilgrim said,
August 1, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Actually I would consider post-mill in general to have elements of partial preterism, as well as amill.
But partial, as both views don’t discount future events (and thus are partial.)
Robert K. said,
August 2, 2007 at 2:25 am
Leithart has written a new post:
“Dr. Catherine Silvi, having herself worked through a fully creationist theology of the yes before the no creationism doctrine of soteriological thinking vis-a-vis justification(s), has kindly taken the time to review my book (her fingerprints still legible I assume!) on creational doctrines and justification(s) I wrote back in 1987 entitled *Creational Perspectives on a Fully Creational Doctrine of Justification(s): A Contexualized Fantasia on 16th Century Reformed Narratives.* I gratefully put you in the fully capable hands of Dr. Silvi.”
Oh, wait a minute, I wrote that as an exercise in satire… Nevermind… (Does it make sense anyway? I’m thinking of Harvard Divinity…
barlow said,
August 2, 2007 at 8:05 am
Yes, I envy Leithart’s intellect as well.
Jon Peters said,
August 2, 2007 at 8:26 am
Robert,
Don’t you know that Leithart is off limits? He cannot be criticized much less mocked. We’re simply not smart enough.
Vern Crisler said,
August 2, 2007 at 9:44 am
Re: #20
“Bahnsen was totally with Shepherd on justification.”
Proof? On one of the Reformed lists, posters tried to coax Bahnsen’s son into giving us the putative evidence (letters, etc.) for Greg’s supposed FVism. He never did.
“Bahnsen did not like paedocommunion. Bahnsen was Vantillian, and that’s 90% of FV.”
90 percent? Like Van Til was 90 percent a theonomist as some claim?
“Bahnsen thought merit theology and the covenant of works were ridiculous.”
Proof? The covenant of works is essential for the covenant of grace. The Bible’s merit theology makes no sense without it. This FV debate has proven that, IMO.
“Bahnsen was thoroughly with Murray and Shepherd and thoroughly anti-Klinean as regards Kline’s legalistic views on salvation.”
Since Kline was an anti-conditionalist, can you provide proof that he had a “legalistic” view of salvation? Evidence would be a lot better than mere assertion.
“As for partial preterism, Bahnsen was following Jay Adams’s book hook, line, and sinker. Rushdoony reprinted Kik’s works. The notion that anybody stole Bahnsen’s thunder is ludicrous. I was there during all these years. Bahnsen made his contribution, but only a contribution.”
Adams’ book may have been one of the first on the subject, but it doesn’t come close to Greg’s works on the subject.
Vern
tim prussic said,
August 2, 2007 at 10:02 am
I think Leithart accepts criticism as well as anyone I’ve seen - and we’re probably not smart enough…
Re. #23 - Maybe it doesn’t bear saying, cuz it’s so obvious, but a single major factor that divides Othrodox Jewish interp of prophesy from Christian is a measure of preterism. What I mean is that ALL Christians are to some degree preterists; the question is to what degree.
James Jordan said,
August 2, 2007 at 10:18 am
Vern’s post is silly. What constitutes proof? He’s basically accusing me of lying. Well, my testimony stands. There is no other kind of proof available except the testimony of those who knew Bahnsen. I knew the man, quite well, for years. We discussed all these matters at length. I am not lying. Vern can accuse me of lying all he wants, but this only shows him to be something of a fool.
I can add that at RTS and WTS in the 1970s, virtually nobody believed in the covenant of works. There was one student who did and who liked to argue it with everybody. Everybody else took “exception” that that part of the WCF. The few who were willing to retain the phrase wanted to qualify it and say that they preferred “covenant of life” or something else. That’s just a fact. Call me a liar if you want, but you only show your ignorance if you don’t know this.
Adams was hardly the first preterist. There was Kik. There was Campbell. And there were hosts of them in the 19th century. Vos’s essay on Matthew 24 is partial-preterist. The notion that Bahnsen somehow originated his brand of preterism is just plain ignorant. He follows Adams in thinking that the harlot is Rome. Few preterists agree. Chilton, reading widely, and I myself and plenty of others realized that the Harlot is Jerusalem, or “the Jerusalem without walls” of Zechariah 2, now in apostasy. Bahnsen never accepted this view. Thus, to suggest that Chilton was copying Bahnsen is just plain stupid.
greenbaggins said,
August 2, 2007 at 10:34 am
James, welcome to my blog.
There seem to be a lot more issues in Vern’s post than Bahnsen’s views and the covenant of works. What about Kline’s views, Van Til’s views, etc.? If, in Kline’s view, the Covenant of Grace is always unconditional, how in the world can he be legalistic? Since Van Til was not a theonomist, the connection between Bahnsen, Van Til, and FV seems tenuous at best.
Andy Gilman said,
August 2, 2007 at 10:38 am
James “Bulldog” Jordan says: “Well, my testimony stands.”
How dare the silly, plain stupid, ignorant, fools question MY testimony!
A couple of threads back, Andy Dollahite questioned Tim Wilder’s “testimony” with regard to some statements James Jordan made on Blog and Mablog. According to Jordan’s rules of discourse, Andy D. was calling Tim Wilder a liar!
James Jordan said,
August 2, 2007 at 10:51 am
Lane, thanks.
I was only interested in setting the record straight about Greg Bahnsen’s views, since he’s not here and there seems to be uninformed speculation about what he thought on these matters. I was not interested in commenting further. But since you ask:
Van Til was very much a friend of Schilder’s, and while Schilder used the phrase “covenant of works” he completely redefined it to mean growth in maturity, not the performance of merits, which he abhorred. I’d be surprised if CVT cared for merit theology.
Theonomy is only a small matter, as Bahnsen always insisted. The big matters are creationism versus scale-of-being thinking, and other larger matters. It is in these large areas that Bahnsen, CVT, and FV are on the same basic page. But two pages in there is a parting of the ways, since FV people see the New Creation as the Old dead and resurrected in Jesus, and Bahnsen was operating with a much “flatter” view of history. At this point, FV and CVT are the same.
I use the word “legalistic” for Kline’s view because he says Adam had to earn by merits and that Jesus earned by merits, the benefit of which is given to us. The Torah was NEVER given to be a guide for earning merits, however, and from a Biblical perspective, Kline’s theology perverts the law into legalism. You may not agree with using “legalism” for this, but compared to “maturation” theology, perhaps you can see why we would call Kline’s view legalistic.
tim prussic said,
August 2, 2007 at 10:53 am
Pastor Lane, the connection ‘twixt Bahnsen, VT and FV doesn’t have to be one in the category of ethics. How about worldview and apologetics - is that a fundamental enough connection?
greenbaggins said,
August 2, 2007 at 11:00 am
James, would you say that the traditional understanding of the first use of the law is legalistic?
I see the views of Van Til not as Schilderian, friend of him though he may have been. You are way too loose in your definition of merit. What kind of merit are talking about? Condign, congruent, or pactum? These three are very different ideas about merit. The FV is all too quick (I think of Mark Horne especially on this) to lump all merit in one category, and then reject all of it. Merit simply does not equal legalism. You are using the term “legalistic” in quite a different sense from what it has traditionally been used for. Kline’s setup quite preserves our salvation by grace, since someone else earned it for us. According to traditional terms, then, you should be accusing Kline of antinomianism, not legalism.
Tim, worldview and apologetics is insufficent basis for saying that Van Til would have agree with the FV’s *covenant* theology, which I see as the fundamental point of contention with regard to the FV.
Vern Crisler said,
August 2, 2007 at 11:04 am
Re: 29
Evidence is usually the best way to silence a critic. Bahnsen’s son never provided it when challenged. And you do not provide any evidence either. And calling Kline a legalist! Sheesh.
Vern
Vern Crisler said,
August 2, 2007 at 11:11 am
I’d also say that the idea that the city that sits on the seven hills is Jerusalem is about as misdirected as any interpretation can be. If I were a “liberal” I’d wonder if there were some anti-semitism at work here.
Vern
pduggan witness in brooklyn said,
August 2, 2007 at 11:51 am
Bahnsen was sympatico with Schlissel on some level. Came to his church, preached, served communion. The works.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 2, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Vern, here you go.
“But then again John Murray retires at Westminster and you have a man who was very competent who took his place and because he was so competent and wrote in a way that didn’t favor mass, well the opinion of many in positions of influence, he was moved out of his position. So, you have both things. The political as well as the lack of proficiency. No no, Norman Shepherd took his place.” Greg Bahnsen
Greg says that Shepherd was removed from Westminster because of his competence and because of politics. If you want to read more you can check out Randy Booth’s article in The Standard Bearer, a festschrift for Bahnsen. Bahnsen was with Shepherd.
James Jordan said,
August 2, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Re. 34. Well, as I showed in my essay, there’s no merit theology in the WCF’s discussion of the “covenant of works.” Horne and I and others reject all notions of merit. Adam was not to merit anything, and Jesus did not merit anything. It’s not a Biblical category, whether condign, congruent, consubstantial, or anything else.
Ron Dodson said,
August 2, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Vern,
Don’t confuse being against Jewish theology with being racist. And, referring to Kline as a legalist refers, as Jim pointed out above, to his view of the Law as speaking to merit, rather than chiefly as a pedagogue.
Grover Gunn said,
August 2, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I have known a number of men who called themselves post-millennial but I have yet to meet a man who, to my knowledge, holds to the classic post-millennial position. The classic postmillennial position is that we are now in the tribulation and the millennium is still in the future but before the second coming. B.B. Warfield accepted the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6 which identifies the millennium with the entire church age. Yet he also believed that the human race will be sanctified in history in a process analogous to the sanctification of the individual, and that the inhabitants of heaven will greatly outnumber the inhabitants of hell in eternity. He also had a preterite interpretation of passages such as the man of sin passage of 2 Thessalonians 2. Interestingly Lane and Doug Wilson have recently been debating Warfield’s little book _The Plan of Salvation_, which ends with a little discourse on eschatological optimism. And, of course, Warfield was not into FV theology. I assume all FV proponents are eschatological optimists, but I also assume they also all believe in the deity of Christ. Let’s be careful about hasty generalizations.
Grover Gunn
Vern Crisler said,
August 2, 2007 at 2:01 pm
#38
Hi Doug,
Can you provide anything specific from Greg’s published writings, or even private? We all know that he and Van Til supported Shepherd in keeping his job. That is not to say they understood the full implications of Shepherd’s conditionalism, or that they supported ecclesiocentrism, ritualism, covenantal “objectivism,” etc.
Vern
Vern Crisler said,
August 2, 2007 at 2:07 pm
#40,
Hi Ron,
First, the problem is that the Bible is full of merit theology. Kline’s anti-conditionalist view is a proper interpretation of it.
Second, the identification of Jerusalem as the city that sits on the seven hills MAY be a result of anti-semitic thinking. It’s just such a preposterous interpretation, it’s hard to come up with a different motivation.
Vern
Steven W said,
August 2, 2007 at 2:08 pm
“Oome Kees [Cornelius Van Til] spoke of being influenced by four people: J. Gresham Machen, Gerhardus Vos, Klaas Schilder and Abraham Kuyper.”
http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?234
pduggan witness in brooklyn said,
August 2, 2007 at 2:33 pm
43: “It’s just such a preposterous interpretation”
1. not an argument.
2. Rev 11:8 identifies the Great City of revelation.
“And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.”
It could hardly be clearer.
Grover Gunn said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:03 pm
#43, second point
” the identification of Jerusalem as the city that sits on the seven hills”
I am not aware of anyone who makes that identification. Of course, there is a lot I don’t know. Allow me to share my understanding of the interpretation I assume you are referring to.
Revelation 17 refers to a woman on a beast with seven heads. The seven heads are seven mountains. The argument is that the woman is earthly Jerusalem and the beast is pagan Rome. According to this interpretation, the relationship between earthly Jerusalem and pagan Roman is summaraized in the words, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). According to this interpretation, the harlot is in contrast to the Bride, who is the heavenly Jerusalem.
May God bless!
Grover Gunn
pduggan witness in brooklyn said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Nope, Sorry. Pastor Gunn, Vern Crisler said that was preposterous.
Grover Gunn said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:40 pm
reply to #47
I believe he said that identifying earthly Jerusalem as the city on seven hills is preposterous. My point is that I am not aware of any interpretation of the book of Revelation which makes that specific identification. To the best of my knowledge, those who identify earthly Jerusalem with the harlot who was drunk with the blood of the saints do not also identify earthly Jerusalem with the beast with seven heads in their interpretation of Revelation 17. The woman is sitting on the beast with seven heads, and the seven heads represent seven hills. In this interpretation, the woman’s sitting on seven hills (v. 9) does not represent her identification with the city of seven hills but her loyalty to the city of seven hills, which is pagan Rome.
I could be wrong. Maybe someone can give us an example of an interpreter who does identify earthly Jerusalem as the city on seven hills in Revelation 17.
May God bless!
Grover Gunn
tim prussic said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Re: Gunn in #41 (rhymes, you’ll notice!): Most postmils I run into are influenced by Kik on the interp of the millennium of Rev. 20. I have yet to talk to a postmil that looks forward to a literal 1000-year golden age - most of us hope for 12,000 years! My recollection is that C. Hodge was more classical in his interp of Rev. 20.
Also, Pastor Gunn: “And, of course, Warfield was not into FV theology.” Hmm… on an anachronistic level, of course this is true. However, that doesn’t mean that he didn’t interact with ideas that have to do with FV distincives. I’m no Warfield scholar, so I’m not positing anything about him or his writings. I’m just slightly annoyed at the tendency of people to speak for the dead on this string!
Regarding Misters Jordan & Crisler - I feel like this a Bud Light commerical: “Tastes Great!” “Less Filling!” - In Bud’s case, both are lies. In merit’s case, we have two categorical statements, at least one of which must be false. Pastor Jordan, would you please provide a link to your article on merit? Mr. Crisler, would you please substantiate what you mean by the Bible’s full of merit theology? And would you both please drink quality beer? Life’s too short to… well, you already know…
pduggan witness in brooklyn said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Well, rev 17 mentions 1) a great city, 2) a beast 3) a woman 4) seven hills 5) seven heads
There is no “city that sits on seven hills”
There IS a woman sitting on 7 heads of a beast, and the 7 heads are called seven hills.
So a woman is sitting on seven hills
The woman is a city. She’s the only city in view in Rev 17 (and 11, I’d argue)
So a “woman/city” is sitting on seven hills
But if you ID the woman as Jerusalem the harlot (which I think is correct), you HAVE linked it up with the idea that it “sits on seven hills”, since the heads she sits on are seven hills.
But the seven hills are kings/hills of the BEAST (roman power).
Or maybe I’m misreading you and you merely mean to say that the “seven hills” mentioned in the text are pointers to Rome, while not called out as a “city” in the text, is, in fact, a city.
pduggan witness in brooklyn said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:54 pm
49: I echo Prussic’s request for Crisler’s defintion of “merit” theology.
I will assume it will be an orthodox definition, which avoids the use of the term “earning” or “wages” strenuously, while allowing for inheritances to be “merited” (only ‘improperly’, as MARS seminary would say).
John said,
August 2, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Here’s Bahnsen on the graciousness of the pre-fall covenant: “His covenant with Adam was gracious in character, sovereignly imposed, mutually binding, called for trust and submission on Adam’s part, and carried sanctions (blessings or curse). When Adam fell into sin, God mercifully re-established a covenantal relationship with him, one in which the gracious and promissory character of the covenant was accentuated even further — in the promise of a coming Savior, a promise which is progressively unfolded and elaborated upon throughout the Old Testament.”
Greg L. Bahnsen, The Counsel of Chalcedon (December, 1992), “Cross-Examination: Practical Implications of Covenant Theology.”
Here’s something on obedience:
“The New Testament and Covenant continue the same demand for obedience. Entrance to the kingdom is dependent upon attesting obedience (Matt. 7:21), and the kingdom itself is synonymous with righteousness; the kingdom (and its commandments) is not solely future, but absolutely demands that everything be subjected to it in this current age.…Continued blessing for Adam in paradise, Israel in the promised land, and the Christian in the kingdom has been seen to be dependent upon persevering obedience to God’s will as expressed in His law. There is complete covenantal unity with reference to the law of God as the standard of moral obligation throughout the diverse ages of human history.”
[Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, (pp. 201-2.]
Here’s something on the conditionality of the covenant:
“The covenant of grace curses people who have the privilege of being among God’s people on earth, distinguished from the world, and yet don’t live up to what He teaches. That’s why the church sometimes has to intervene, lest the church profane God’s covenant and its seals.”
[Greg L. Bahnsen, Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7, Sections 1-3, audio tape of lecture presented in Calif., 1994.]
Hope this helps!
Vern Crisler said,
August 2, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Re: #52,
Hi John,
Please see:
http://www.westminsterrpcus.org/pdf/Bahnsen.pdf
Vern
tim prussic said,
August 2, 2007 at 5:38 pm
What am I, chopped liver?
Tim Wilder said,
August 2, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Re: 52
“carried sanctions (blessings or curse)”
This is merit theology. They are not sanctions of the covenant unless they result from meeting or failing to meet the terms of the covenant. That is merit.
John said,
August 2, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Tim W., if that’s merit theology, then Bahnsen had merit theology for the covenant of grace, too. He spoke of it has having sanctions (blessings or curse).
Andy Gilman said,
August 2, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Yes, John, the Covenant of Grace is a meritorious covenant, in which the meritorious Covenant Keeper ever lives to make intercession for the elect, his seed.
Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.
Q. 55. How doth Christ make intercession?
A. Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it applied to all believers; answering all accusations against them, and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services.
tim prussic said,
August 2, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Andy, just waving your hand over a couple questions and answers from the Catechism saying “merit” a few times in the process doesn’t make it so. I’m not even saying you’re wrong - maybe the WORK of Christ can be seen as his MERIT, all of which is our in him. However, with regard to your post above (#57), there a veritable plethora of “merit” in your preface, and an embarrassing dearth of it in the catechism that follows.
tim prussic said,
August 2, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Hit “send” too quickly…
We need a working definition of “merit” that will help us navigate in the conversation. It seems that covenatal stipulations and sanctions form the basis of any biblical notion of merit. That is, God promises X for obedience, by his grace we comply, God gives X. In a limited covenantal sense, we merited X. This, however, is a far cry from many medieval notions of merit.
As to Andy’s citation of #55, I think there is a covenantal structure to the intra-trinitarian covenant of redemption that allows that kind of language. Very roughly speaking: the Father promises X for obedience, the Son complies (relying in his humanity on the power of the Spirit [thus, a Trinitarian covnenant!]), the Father gives X.
This set up seems to have the advantage of retaining the graciousness of the gift and the reliance upon grace to “merit” the gift.
kjsulli said,
August 2, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Nota bene: in the merit of his obedience! The divines were not universally opposed to the category “merit,” so anti-meritologists will need to go elsewhere than Westminster.
(This is NOT to say that Adam’s obedience to the covenant of works would have been inherently meritorious, i.e., condign, by the by.)
I have been intrigued that the Federal Visionaries frequently appeal to Van Til. I’m not well acquainted with the Van Til/Clark battles (an unfortunate point of ignorance, I’m afraid). But I do know an adamant Van Tillian who is supremely opposed to the Federal Vision, so I somewhat doubt their claims, although perhaps they are legitimately expanding threads of Van Til’s thought.
And, although everyone is eager to be an “optimist” these days, I must admit to being a “pessimistic” amillennialist.
kjsulli said,
August 2, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Tim, re: 59,
What you seem to be describing is so-called pactum merit.
Do any of our Federal Visionaries subscribe to that notion?
(Don’t worry, Tim, I’m not accusing you of anything!)
Andy Gilman said,
August 2, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Tim P., I’m not “waving my hand over anything. I’m giving an answer to John’s comments in #56. You seem to be addressing my comments about a meritorious covenant and a meritorious Covenant Keeper as if they appeared to you in a dream or were pulled out of the thin air, rather than in the context of this discussion thread. Also, why didn’t you speak up about a “working definition of ‘merit’” back after post #39?, when James Jordan said:
[BOQ]
Well, as I showed in my essay, there’s no merit theology in the WCF’s discussion of the “covenant of works.” Horne and I and others reject all notions of merit. Adam was not to merit anything, and Jesus did not merit anything. It’s not a Biblical category, whether condign, congruent, consubstantial, or anything else.
[EOQ]
I’m not sure how you measure plethora’s and dearth’s, but how weighty is the merit spoken of in Q.55? Does the “merit of his obedience and sacrifice” even register on a scale? And wouldn’t it take just a smidgin of merit to falsify Jordan’s claim that “Jesus did not merit anything,” especially after he rejects “all notions of merit?”
But Jordan is an FVConversationalist, and Westminster can play no role in the FV discussion, apart from a wax nose.
tim prussic said,
August 2, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Andy, my apologies for my overstating my case. My main point above was that that of the Bud Light comment - chanting “Yes, merit!” “No, down with merit!” don’t seem to get us anywhere.
I am more confused by Pastor Jordan’s absolute denial of merit, however, I think it might make sense if some terms were defined… that’s all.
kjsulli, I’m not sure where FVers stand on pactum merit or the pactum salutis. I know that I affirm both.
Tim Wilder said,
August 2, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Re: 56
“Tim W., if that’s merit theology, then Bahnsen had merit theology for the covenant of grace, too. He spoke of it has having sanctions (blessings or curse).”
You would benefit by studying Schilder. He recognized that the Covenant of Works is the more basic covenant. However fuzzy headed he may have been about some things, he understood that. In the Covenant of Grace Christ’s merit (in fulfilling the Covenant of Works) is imputed to us, and our guilt (under the Covenant of Works) in imputed to him. So the Covenant of Grace IS about merit. The question is, Whose merit?
John said,
August 2, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Andy seems to have missed the point concerning Bahnsen completely. Bahnsen spoke of the pre-fall covenant as one which “carried sanctions (blessings or curse).” Tim W. said: “This is merit theology.” I responded by saying that if that was merit theology, then Bahnsen’s view of the covenant of grace also involved merit theology, since Bahnsen saw the covenant of grace as one that involved sanctions (blessings or curse).
Andy replied: “Yes, John, the Covenant of Grace is a meritorious covenant, in which the meritorious Covenant Keeper ever lives to make intercession for the elect, his seed.”
But that isn’t what Bahnsen is talking about. Bahnsen wasn’t saying that Christ kept the covenant and thereby merited blessings for us instead of curse. Rather, Bahnsen is saying that we must keep the covenant of grace or we will inherit curse.
He writes: “The covenant of grace curses people who have the privilege of being among God’s people on earth, distinguished from the world, and yet don’t live up to what He teaches.”
Note the emphasis on people (not Christ) living up to what God teaches. If they don’t, he says, they will be cursed by virtue of the covenant of grace in which they are included.
Again, Andy, please note that I’m not arguing this position. I’m pointing out what Bahnsen appears to have taught.
kjsulli said,
August 2, 2007 at 9:53 pm
John,
How does Bahnsen think we obtain the blessings of the Covenant of Grace?
kjsulli said,
August 2, 2007 at 9:54 pm
I’m sorry, I looked back up at the comments and it appears I can find my answer in 52.
John said,
August 2, 2007 at 9:55 pm
kjsulli: I don’t know where Bahnsen would address that directly. I expect he’d stress faith. But he also writes this:
“The New Testament and Covenant continue the same demand for obedience. Entrance to the kingdom is dependent upon attesting obedience (Matt. 7:21), and the kingdom itself is synonymous with righteousness; the kingdom (and its commandments) is not solely future, but absolutely demands that everything be subjected to it in this current age.…Continued blessing for Adam in paradise, Israel in the promised land, and the Christian in the kingdom has been seen to be dependent upon persevering obedience to God’s will as expressed in His law. There is complete covenantal unity with reference to the law of God as the standard of moral obligation throughout the diverse ages of human history” (Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, pp. 201-2, emphasis added.)
Grover Gunn said,
August 2, 2007 at 9:58 pm
#50
I think we are saying the same thing. Forgive me not expressing myself better.
My basic point is that it is not preposterous to identify the harlot of Revelation 17 with earthly Jerusalem. One doesn’t have to agree with it, but it is not preposterous. In that interpretation, the beast with seven heads is still a metaphor for ancient Rome, the city universally associated with seven hills. The seven heads of the beast are metaphors for both the famous seven hills of Rome and the early Caesars. The woman is sitting on the seven hills in verse 9 in the same sense that is symbolized by her sitting on the beast with seven heads in verse 3. The sitting can in this context be a metaphor for the woman’s loyalty to Rome and dependence upon Rome as reflected in the statement of the chief priests to Pilate, “We have no king but Caesar.”
Grover Gunn
Tim Wilder said,
August 2, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Re: 61
“What you seem to be describing is so-called pactum merit.”
“Do any of our Federal Visionaries subscribe to that notion?”
The FV talk out of both sides of their mouths.
The definition of “merit” is “a title in strict justice”.
What gives the title? The covenent. A covenant is agreement that promises something on conditions.
What is strict justice? If one meets the conditions of the covenant, than one is entitled to what the covenant promised on those conditions.
That is what merit is.
You see, that is what a covenant is for. It creates a legal situation of entitlement with reference to clear conditions. The creation of a covenant brings into existence the judicial category, a legal situation where merit is possible.
So, what about other kinds of merit than pactum merit? For example, what about the idea that some thing or act has some sort of intrinsic worth such that it deserves some corresponding reward, not because of an agreement or promise, but just on account of what it is? Well, as we noted above, merit is a legal, contractual concept. Other types of merit, such as intrinsic merit, are really a metaphorical application of the legal concept to a non legal situation. Pactum merit is the fundamental type of merit.
One of the functions of the Covenant of Works is to bring into existence this judicial, legal aspect of created reality, and this is one of the ways that the Covenant of Works is foundational to a theology of culture (and not nonsense such as common grace, and the like).
What about proper and improper merit? Something is “proper” if it is intrinsic. Think of the term “property” in chemistry of physics. Intrinsic merit, merit that is the property of a thing or act, is proper merit. But as noted above, “proper merit” turns out to be metaphorical, because merit is a legal concept arising from relationships, specifically agreements between parties. So “improper merit”, specifically the type known as pactum merit is the basic concept of merit. The medievals with their Aristotelianism did not see it this way, but Aristotelianism is wrong. Aristotle also thought that objects fell because they were trying to move to their natural place in universe, and if they management to get there, they would just stop. Aristotelians look for intrinsic qualities to explain as much as possible.
Back to the FV. They like to say “covenant” but they don’t believe in covenants most of the time. They do make an exception when they create a church covenant and want to make you do things. Then conditions and sanctions, and meeting those conditions become very important to them!
Andy Gilman said,
August 2, 2007 at 11:19 pm
In #65 John B. said: “Andy seems to have missed the point concerning Bahnsen completely.”
Yes, it seems I did miss your point. I thought you were trying to dispute Tim Wilder’s statement in #55 where he said: “This is merit theology. They are not sanctions of the covenant unless they result from meeting or failing to meet the terms of the covenant. That is merit.” It looked to me like you were saying “If that’s merit theology, then Bahnsen also advocated merit theology with regard to the covenant of grace, and wouldn’t that be outrageous?,” adding that last clause in my mind.
I interjected that the covenant of grace does involve merit, Christ’s, not fallen man’s, and the LC clearly teaches it. If Bahnsen’s teaching regarding the covenant of works and the covenant of grace leaves him teaching (by logical extension) that fallen man can merit the blessing by personally “keeping the covenant of grace,” then Bahnsen’s teaching should be rejected.
What about Tim W’s point that “blessing or curse,” by either living up to or by failing to live up to, the terms of the covenant, is “merit theology?” As I said, I thought your response to Tim was an attempt on your part to dispute that point.
John said,
August 2, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Andy writes: “If Bahnsen’s teaching regarding the covenant of works and the covenant of grace leaves him teaching (by logical extension) that fallen man can merit the blessing by personally “keeping the covenant of grace,” then Bahnsen’s teaching should be rejected.
What about Tim W’s point that “blessing or curse,” by either living up to or by failing to live up to, the terms of the covenant, is “merit theology?” As I said, I thought your response to Tim was an attempt on your part to dispute that point.
I don’t agree with Tim W.: What Bahnsen was presenting wasn’t merit theology. I don’t think that he was saying that Adam’s faith and obedience would have merited or earned blessing from God, although that blessing would come only along the path of faith-full obedience. If this is indeed what Bahnsen is saying, then his view is pretty close to that of men such as Klaas Schilder.
pduggie said,
August 3, 2007 at 7:03 am
70: But where in the bible do we find a covenant that offers eternal life on condition of obedience? The Torah didn’t. Gen 1-3 says naught on such a construct.
And even if we do (it certainly isn’t explicit), it is important to affirm that the way the condition functions is the way an inheritance functions, where “labor/earning/wages” have nothing to do with HOW the obedience is conditionally related to the reward.
So YES, conditions for rewards, but HOW shall we characterize the conditions? The Reformed world has spoken out of both sides of their mouth on this, and the FV is merely highlighting it
Tim Wilder said,
August 3, 2007 at 7:53 am
Re: 73
“But where in the bible do we find a covenant that offers eternal life on condition of obedience? The Torah didn’t. Gen 1-3 says naught on such a construct.”
Here we are back to hermeneutics. The Westminster Confession summarizes the system of covenants that Reformed hermenutics finds in the Bible. The Federal Vision does not see this system, which is another way of saying that the Federal Vision does not practice Reformed hermeneutics, but has its own. When will the FV be honest about this and stop calling itself Reformed?
“Where “labor/earning/wages” have nothing to do with HOW the obedience is conditionally related to the reward.”
In Reformed theology the HOW is that keeping conditions is covenantally related to the reward. Covenant, as I explained about, is a MERIT construct. If you don’t believe in merit you don’t believe in covenants.
In the case of the Covenant of Grace, the covenant is made with Christ.
James Jordan said,
August 3, 2007 at 8:09 am
Grover,
I agree with your take, save that I think that in Revelation the “city” is the Circumcision, centered in physical Jerusalem, but referring back to Zechariah 2 and the “Jerusalem without walls” spread out in the Oikumene. Hence, while Matt. 24 speaks of the physical city, the Harlot in Revelation is a larger and more general concept. Also, I submit that Harlot = Jerusalem (physical or larger) is right in line with how the Church has always read Rev. 17. To be sure, for a long time the Harlot was seen as Roman Catholicism. But she was always seen as false church, not as political power. Identifying the Harlot City with the Roman Empire, with the political power on which she rests, is not how the Church has usually read the passage.
James Jordan said,
August 3, 2007 at 8:11 am
As regards Bahnsen’s view of Shepherd’s doctrine of justification, you now have the testimony of 2-3 witnesses: David, myself, and now Bahnsen. That’s enough evidence to satisfy God, so I wonder at people who are holier than God and who aren’t satisfied.
James Jordan said,
August 3, 2007 at 8:13 am
Mr. Prussic,
My article on merit is in *The Federal Vision.* I assume that everyone here has read it, since on blogs like this people seem to know vastly more about the FV than I myself do! But then again, the FV that has been criticized by the PCA and the OPC is a fantasy of their own minds and bears scant resemblance to what I or anyone I know believes.
James Jordan said,
August 3, 2007 at 8:33 am
John Otis’s essay on Bahnsen and FV is of no real help. Otis has created his own FV and shows that his Bahnsen does not agree with it. His quotations from Bahnsen do not say what he says they say. Otis’s book is an exercise in solipsism. More to the point, since questions about “active obedience” did not arise until recently, and Shepherd had no problem with the notion 25 years ago, it’s rather pointless to try and dream up whether Greg would have entertained present discussions on the matter. Where Greg was very firm is that Shepherd’s Theses and his take on the relationship of obedience to justification is absolutely correct.
How Greg would have responded to the imaginary FV discussed by some on this list, I have no idea. Personally, I do not hold to the ideas of the imaginary FV. From what I can pick up of what this scarecrow is supposed to be, I don’t think Bahnsen would have either.
pduggan witness in brooklyn said,
August 3, 2007 at 9:18 am
“In Reformed theology the HOW is that keeping conditions is covenantally related to the reward. Covenant, as I explained about, is a MERIT construct. If you don’t believe in merit you don’t believe in covenants.”
That’s rather circular. merit is just a word used to describe how conditions function in covenants. And conditions are what tell us we have covenants.
But there’s still a difference between earning wages and inheriting estates. And Christianity is about inheriting an estate.
Vern Crisler said,
August 3, 2007 at 11:03 am
Re: #52
Bahnsen said:
“The covenant of grace curses people who have the privilege of being among God’s people on earth, distinguished from the world, and yet don’t live up to what He teaches. That’s why the church sometimes has to intervene, lest the church profane God’s covenant and its seals.” [Greg L. Bahnsen, Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7, Sections 1-3, audio tape of lecture presented in Calif., 1994.]
—————
This only means that Greg was a proponent of strong covenantalism, not of FV. FV’s covenantalism is even more extreme than Bahnsen’s. In the strict sense the covenant of grace is made only with the elect. In a loose sense, the non-elect could be part of it, but only in a loose sense. Greg’s error, and it is the error of strong covenantalism, is to flatten out the differences between the Mosaic and New Covenant. The Mosaic covenant was a conditional, national covenant; the Covenant of Grace is a spiritual covenant, and unconditional.
Greg held to the imputed righteous of Christ–of his obedience and death (active and passive), so he could hardly be regarded as a proto-FVist. His erroneous strong covenant theology led him into his erroneous theonomy views, but again that is not the same as FV.
He was also a critic of the Tyler church, which was the real headwaters of the miasma of FV, and was also a critic of Jordan’s lunatic biblical interpretations.
No, FV’s cannot claim Bahnsen as one of there own. Those who do are simply liars–Jesuitical liars perhaps–but liars nonetheless.
Vern
A. Dollahite said,
August 3, 2007 at 11:39 am
Andy Gilman,
RE #31, when it comes to questioning claims by people (whether its James Jordan or Tim Wilder, or John Doe), I agree with Vern who said in #35, “Evidence is usually the best way to silence a critic.”
Tim Wilder claims that James Jordan has said that he and his friends in the FV deny the WCF. Now, that is a bold claim on Tim’s part that he has yet to establish. He can point to statements where Jordan says he takes exceptions to parts of the WCF, and perhaps it’s even true that Jordan himself rejects the WCF en toto. James has been around these parts recently, so I’ll leave it up to him to explain his views. But, Tim W. has yet to produce any quote where Jordan says something to the effect of, “My friends in the FV (X, Y, and Z) deny the WCF.” And because Tim can’t produce the evidence, I’m not inclined to believe his claim, and neither should anyone else.
As for Jordan (or anyone else here, FV, anti-FV, somewhere in between) who makes claims about matters worth discussing, then I expect them to be able to substantiate their claims. If they can’t, then their better off not saying anything at all. It’s a two-way street for us all. I just get frustrated when people are so quick to say something about another Christian brother and then become unwilling to support their claims.
Imagine for a second I come on this thread and say, “Andy Gilman said somewhere on a blog a while ago that he and his friends deny the WCF.” Along comes someone with no background in any of this controversey other than having heard your name somewhere else. What should they do, just take my word for it? What if they asked me, “Hey, out of curiosity, where did Andy Gilman say such a thing?” And then, in reply I say, “Why don’t you go find it for yourself. You people just want to send me on endless assignments.” What should they think?
A. Dollahite said,
August 3, 2007 at 11:49 am
Vern,
You said, “Greg held to the imputed righteous of Christ–of his obedience and death (active and passive), so he could hardly be regarded as a proto-FVist.” How does your conclusion follow if the “de facto leader” of the FV, Doug Wilson, also holds to the imputed righteous of Christ–of his obedience and death (active and passive)?
Vern Crisler said,
August 3, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Re: #82
So both Greg and Wilson reject Shepherd. Ok, that’s a good thing.
Vern
James Jordan said,
August 3, 2007 at 1:45 pm
#83. Repeating the same stupid falsehoods endlessly will not make them true, Vern. Time you grew up.
Vern Crisler said,
August 3, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Re: #84
Well, I was going to say that you were a moron, an idiot, a servant of Satan, probably a Democrat, and a cigar-chomping hill-ape. Then I thought better of it. I believe Lane requires a modicum of manners on his blog, something that may be difficult for you, I know. Try anyway.
Oh why oh why didn’t Sherman pause a moment to take out Athens on his way through Georgia. Alas! We’ll never know. Mysteries of providence, I suppose.
Vern
Just kidding.
tim prussic said,
August 3, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Pastor Jordan, re. #77 - what? Like, I gotta buy a book? WOW!
I seem to remeber Dr. North talking about Jean Luc Picardism in this vein.
I’ve not read that book. I read the pros & cons book, then my stomach turned as I watched Christan brothers treat each other with contempt, I stopped dealing with the FV “conversation” or “onslaught” or “witch hunt” or whatever. The fundamental human need to be right/correct makes us act like such asses to other people that it tends to sicken me… especially as I see it so much in myself. Maybe it’s better to content myself with Hugo and Tolstoy and leave theological contorversy alone. I’m still not sure which way to swing on that.
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 4, 2007 at 1:57 am
I want to bear witness to what James Jordan has said here. I worked at Covenant Tape Ministry/Covenant Media Foundation for several years. I have read everything that Dr. Bahnsen has ever written that is extant - including unpublished articles and sermon and lecture notes. I think I have listened to more Greg Bahnsen lectures and sermons than anyone else alive (everything in the CMF catalogue except for some of the sermons on Luke and Proverbs). I had several good discussions with Dr. B on paedocommunion and Murray’s view of baptism and on Shepherd and Westminster Seminary.
So, was Dr. Bahnsen FV? I think the center of FV theology is paedocommunion and Dr. Bahnsen was not a paedocommunionist (although he was not hostile to the doctrine by 1993 when we discussed the OPC majority report - Roger Wagner who was on the study committee was Dr. B’s best friend and wrote in favor of the OPC majority report supporting paedocommunion. Randy Booth and Ben House were also at this discussion and can witness to Bahnsen’s views on Paedocommunion, Murray and Shepherd).
So, on liturgy and communion issues Bahnsen was not “FV”. On the faith/works, justification, post-mill, christendom, objective covenant, baptismal efficacy issues he as “FV”.
Blessings,
Mahaffey
James Jordan said,
August 4, 2007 at 10:59 am
Re. 86. Don’t know if people are still reading this, but yes. And why did you not go to the source first? From time to time my masochistic side brings me over the places like this where I read the most amazing, fantastic, ignorant, and bitter accusations about something people call “FV,” which bears virtually no resemblance to anything published by supposedly “FV” people. We never were any kind of group or movement, and it has only been the continual crowing about this supposed “FV movement” that finally provoked some of us to issue a statement. So, if you want to know what FV is, read the statement and buy the book. Otherwise, why bother discussing it at all?
I wonder how many other FV experts here and elsewhere have bothered to read the book. It’s clear that the authors of the PCA and of the MARS statement did not read it.
tim prussic said,
August 4, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Pastor Jordan, I’ve read a fair amount of primary material. That book was published after my interest waned. Also, I was joking about having to BUY the book… anyway, I thought it was funny!
A great deal of anti-FV rhetoric I’ve found to be opposing mere caricatures of the FV authors with whom I’m familiar. That coupled with the really bad manners of some of the interlocutors was a real turn off to me. I think Pastor Lane’s done a good job of presenting accurate assessments of, say, Pastor Wilson’s positions, and he done a good job of interacting with the same. I say more of it.
Blogs are the domain of the wacked-out, so I’m not surprised to read what I read, here or anywhere else on line. All I gotta say is praise Yahweh that his church isn’t composed of blogs but of local bodies with real sessions.
Grover Gunn said,
August 4, 2007 at 2:09 pm
The 2007 PCA General Assembly recommended the nine declarations of the study report as “a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards.” The more relevant issue now is whether those in the PCA who have taken or will take ordination vows agree in an honest and straightforward sense with the nine declarations. At this point, that is more important anyone’s understanding of what FV theology actually teaches and also more important than whether there actually is an FV theology.
Grover Gunn
Steven W said,
August 4, 2007 at 2:29 pm
90- I would disagree with this. What you say is the technical requirement for certain PCA procedure, but I can’t help but think that God will not be pleased if we continue to treat one another in this “it’s only business” fashion.
Lane is calling people heretics on this blog. That’s a major charge. Historically the term heretic is associated with men like Arius and Nestorius. It is not typically associated with Melancthon and Wesley.
So, in my opinion this website and others like it are in much need of doing the actual research and trying to wrestle with hermeneutical questions than they are simply affirming a supposed interpretation of the Westminster standards.
I understand that we are confessional Presbyterians, don’t get me wrong. I just want us to be Christians in addition to this.
greenbaggins said,
August 4, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I have said it before, and I will say it again here. I am not using the term “heretic” on my blog to mean someone who is like Arius or Nestorius. I refer to someone who is outside the doctrinal standards of our church. In this sense, a Baptist would be a heretic (but only if he claimed to follow the WS). So, get it right, Steven, and understand my position, you who are so gung-ho about the critics not understanding the FV.
David Gadbois said,
August 4, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I can’t say I understand the WWGBD stuff. I have a fair bit of shelfspace of his tapes and posthumous book. He was a good apologist (although he had a dangerously naive strong modal view of TAG). I believe he was not only wrong but divisive on theonomy. And his cassette-tape-heavy ministry (coupled w/ his untimely death) kept him from leaving substantial published literature (while writing many many articles, his only book-length literature was, most unfortunately, on theonomy), whether academic or popular.
His charisma, no doubt, accounts for his legacy and his loyal fans, but he is not qualified as the first person we should look to in asking questions dealing with historic and systematic theology. He was informed, at best, but not an expert more than anyone else holding an M.Div from Westminster Seminary (unless I am overlooking some specialized study he did for his ThM). Monocovenantalism has ALWAYS been a problem in dominionist/reconstruction circles, so why would anyone be stunned if he followed some of Shepherd’s errors?
Steven W said,
August 4, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Lane,
So “the gospel” isn’t at stake then?
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 5, 2007 at 12:23 am
David,
Could you give us a brief summary of Dr. Bahnsen’s view of TAG and how it was a “dangerously naive strong modal” view? Have you listened to any of his courses on Philosophy or Apologetics (by courses I means 20-30 hour seminary courses not 2-4 hour popular lectures)? Have you read the Van Til book? Most critiques of Bahnsen that I have seen (yours included) rely on regurgitated caricatures rather than any interaction with his actual views. (James Jordan’s critique of Bahnsen is fair and interacts with his actual positions and I generally agree that Bahnsen’s view of Theonomy was undeveloped, so I am not just a Bahnsen groupie).
P.S. Thanks to Jim Jordan for being gracious in the way you described Bahnsen’s views and personality.
P.S.S. Bahnsen would have been the first to say “Who cares what I would have said?!” He leaned for more toward biblicism than traditionalism.
Blessings,
mahaffey
Taylor Marshall said,
September 21, 2007 at 8:39 pm
For a Catholic perspective on the pactum salutis:
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2007/09/covenant-or-federal-theology-according.html
The Trinity, Revisited « Green Baggins said,
May 12, 2008 at 11:41 am
[...] previous thoughts on the first major section are to be found here. I don’t have a whole lot to add. I wish to reaffirm the covenant of redemption as being the [...]
Ron DiGiacomo said,
May 12, 2008 at 1:09 pm
James,
With all due respect, your writings seem more like rantings than anything that can be taken seriously.
“Bahnsen was totally with Shepherd on justification”
Bahnsen was articulate and orthodox, so his doctrine of justification was conveyed with clarity. Shepherd is unclear at best. Accordingly, if the two shared the same theology, it would be difficult to prove.
“Bahnsen was Vantillian, and that’s 90% of FV.”
I am a male, and that’s 90% FV, therefore, I’m FV. — O.K. I think I got it.
“Bahnsen would have distanced himself from FV because of the people involved, like myself, who had been attacked by him in the past.”
Let me see if I got this right. Bahnsen was Van Tillian and, therefore, a federal visionist but because he was attacked by you he would have distanced himself from the doctrine he allegedly embraced. So you think your old friend was not a man of character too.
James, you’ve been weighed in the balance and found wanting. I think it’s time to retire.
Ron
The Trinity and Post-Millenialism « Green Baggins said,
May 16, 2008 at 9:58 am
[...] on post-millenialism, I don’t really have anything more to add than what I’ve already said. I do have this one question, however. Do post-millenialists believe that all amils are pessimists? [...]
J.Kru said,
May 16, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Greenbaggins, I don’t think you can redefine “heretic” to refer to the standards of “our church” and still affirm the Apostle’s Creed, “ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic church.”
There is no “our” church. There’s Christ’s Church. If you’re a heretic, you ought to be out of it. If you’re not, you’re in it.
And besides, since when do you brook with “definition changers?” I thought those guys drove you nuts.