On Scripture
August 3, 2007 at 1:03 pm (Federal Vision)
The fourth paragraph of the FV statement has to do with Scripture. It is sufficiently vague to be acceptable to most people. It begs a few questions however: what hermeneutical grids are not derived from Scripture itself? I would suspect that the TR “grid” falls into their target here. Obviously, every TR would agree that a hermeneutical grid not derived from Scripture itself is not valid. But what constitutes such an invalid grid? Furthermore, what about good and necessary consequence? Given the FV’s reluctance to engage in practising systematic theology (and some advocates’ obvious downplaying of systematic theology in supposed favor of biblical theology), it would have been good had this statement affirmed the place in our theologizing for good and necessary consequence in systematic theology. The WCF, for instance, states very clearly that good and necessary consequence has the same authority that the explicit statements of Scripture have. That is, good and necessary consequence is part of the whole counsel of God (WCF 1.6). In other words, I agree with what is put down here in the FV statement, as far as it goes. But I don’t know if they have here dealt with critics’ concerns regarding the FV’s methodology. It is a general statement that does not go as far as the WS go in defining the material for our theologizing.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 4, 2007 at 11:00 am
There is also the problem of the FV’s biblicism, which seems to pit Scripture against tradition, as if they suddenly discovered Rom. 4:25, so traditional imputation be damned (Horne has accused me of faulting the Bible for its failure to stand up to the scrutiny of the Confession).
So when they insist that the Bible should trump tradition, what they’re really saying is that their own novel interpretation of the Bible should trump the church’s collective interpretation of it.
An odd position for a bunch of Van Tillians, to be sure….
News Catch-up « Reformed Musings said,
August 4, 2007 at 2:04 pm
[...] Baggins posted on the Joint Federal Vision Statement’s section on Scripture. I haven’t had time to tackle that section yet, but hope to get to it before the end of the [...]
Douglas Wilson said,
August 4, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Jason, whatever gave you the idea that I reject traditional imputation? I unambiguously affirm it. And that should matter for something because Scott Clark says that I am the leader of all this FV business.
And there is a difference between saying that the substance of biblical teaching should trump the substance of tradition, which is what the Reformers said to Rome, and saying that biblical language and terminology should have priority over traditional language and terminology, which is what we are saying to you.
Robert K. said,
August 4, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I just want to say that Carol has written an interesting comment in a post below that it would be a shame if it were abandoned down there because it would be interesting to see it engaged:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/08/02/christians-in-society/#comment-25305
Robert K. said,
August 4, 2007 at 4:29 pm
>”And there is a difference between saying that the substance of biblical teaching should trump the substance of tradition, which is what the Reformers said to Rome, and saying that biblical language and terminology should have priority over traditional language and terminology, which is what we are saying to you.”
Yes, because the biblical warrant behind all that old-fashioned Reformed terminology is so non-existent, and because all those dead white males with the famous names never took the time to actually do any biblical theology but just kind of plastered their terms and thinking of the day onto the Bible and us gullible followers have been following it ever since…
Robert K. said,
August 4, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Go over to Mark Horne’s blog if you want to see a Federal Visionist unabashed, rolling out of his closet in full Victoria Secret gear:
http://www.hornes.org/mark/
I write this on Aug. 4, ‘07. Look at the recent posts there and scroll on down for more. If they’re still there…
I don’t care how many pictures of his (handsome) children he puts on his blog. They’re not able to save a soul… That Doug Wilson allows himself to be associated with such juvenile nonsense and worse (actual poison) can only mean he’s as fake as those clerics in the Roman domain who say peace, peace, love, love, and end up costing their church billions.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 4, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Doug,
I never mentioned you personally, but was referring to the FV as a whole. From what I have read, you (pl.) do not like the idea that the active and passive obedience of Christ is given to the believer by faith. Lusk’s idea of logizomai as reckoning rather than transfer wouldn’t be so bad if the union by which the reckoning occurs weren’t loseable.
On biblical vs. traditional language, the role of $y$tem@t!c theology (pardon the profanity) is to correlate the various biblical data into a unified whole. Hence the visible/invisible distinction, and hence justification/vindication. These are distinctions that help elucidate the teaching of the Bible, especially when different authors use the same terms in different ways.
And lastly, I do find it interesting that I can’t seem to ellicit a response from a Federal Visionist that doesn’t mention Scott Clark. If you all insist on complaining about being lumped together (which sometime you unfairly are), then you should stop doing the same thing to your opponents.
What’s good for the goose….
David Gadbois said,
August 4, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Lane, the empty-headed biblicism is a necessary sort of wooden hermeneutic for FV - as necessary as it is to dispensationalism. Dispensationalism and FV are both anti-confessional, not only for the specific point of doctrine but because of a hermeneutic that systematically warps all of Scripture. That why Steve Schlissel can read “do this and live” in Luke 10 and conclude that we must be able to fulfill the law. So there goes the law/gospel hermeneutic, which this statement explicitly renounces.
That’s also what justifies Wilkins’ hermeneutic - reading all of Paul’s letters as referring to the visible church and dismissing the judgment of charity Paul has for his audience. Do this, and voila! You end up with a parallel soteriology where the non-elect within the visible church have union, adoption, forgiveness, justification, etc. in Christ. This is exegetical idiocy. The confessions aside, anyone who blunders through Scripture like this is not competent to be a Minister of the Word and Sacraments.
Robert K. said,
August 4, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Recently reading another horridly dumb Peter Leithart essay I think I saw what is so annoying about Federal Visionists: reading them is seeing post-modern jackass secular academics finally getting to the point where “justification” and “Calvin” are coming off their pens. It took them awhile. They spent a long time with Shakespeare alone (I think at the end Shakespeare became a member of the Village People who was actually a Nazi and an anti-smoker).
Can we perhaps hope that maybe some new subject to riff on like “Global Warming” will be strong enough to pull the Federal Vision intellectuals back into the secular realm? I think not. Once they’ve lost all shame and gotten a taste of ‘taking on God’ there isn’t anything else strong enough to take its place. I suspect we’re going to be seeing them turn Calvin and Owen et al into members of the Village People, or at least trying to, until the return of the King…
Michael Saville said,
August 4, 2007 at 7:06 pm
David,
re: 8
I hope you’re aware that you’re critique goes well beyond those identified with the FV, but includes the mainstream of Reformed interpretation. Witness John Murray’s commentary on Romans, “Lev. 18:5 is in a context in which the claims of God upon his redeemed and covenant people are being asserted and urged upon Israel…The whole passage is no more legalistic than the ten commandments. Hence the words “which if a man do, he shall live in them” (vs. 5) refers not to the life accruing from doing in a legalistic framework but to the blessing attendant upon the obedience in a redemptive and covenant relationship to God.”
And Ridderbos on Galatians 3:12, “As in verse 10, so here the utterances concerning the law are understood against the background of the later Jewish redemption and merit system. The Judaizers in the churches of Galatia used the utterances concerning the law in the same context of meaning. That there is also a life in the law lived out of the grace of God’s covenant (Psalm 119) is, of course, not denied by this.”
I apologize if I’ve misread you, but your critique would seem to also apply to Murray and Ridderbos and countless other Reformed exegetes.
Blessings,
Michael
R. F. White said,
August 4, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Re: #10 — John Murray’s project, announced in his tract, The Covenant of Grace (London: The Tyndale Press, 1954), was to recast and reconstruct classic covenant theology and of the law (old covenant) in particular. His reading of Lev 18 was not in the mainstream, as shocking as that may sound. That doesn’t mean he was wrong, by the way.
Dave H said,
August 4, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Robert KKK
Keep it up, Bob. Your statements continue to make the FV guys look more and more credible. Thanks, bunches!
Michael Saville said,
August 4, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Hi Dr. White,
As I look back at my comment, it was probably worded too strongly–probably “a mainstream” Reformed interpretation would have been more appropriate, and I was thinking more in terms of the past 50-100 years. However, whether Murray’s view was novel or not, it has impacted many since (as has Ridderbos and others). My point was that this view is certainly mainstream today, and held by many who have no identification with the FV. In fact, I was taught this view during my time at Covenant Seminary.
In addition to Murray and Ridderbos, here’s Dr. Wilber Wallis (former Professor of New Testament at Covenant Seminary) in a somewhat critical review of Daniel Fuller’s work, “Dr. Fuller’s better understanding of the relation of law and gospel emerges in exegesis of Romans 10:5-8 and Galatians 3:10-12. By a fresh reading of Romans and Galatians in light of the quotations from the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 27:26; 30:6; Lev 18:5, etc.), Fuller shows that Paul sometimes uses “law” and “works of the law” in a bad sense; that is, Paul is refuting by his exegesis the Pharisaic, legalist misinterpretation of the Old Testament. Clearly Paul’s intention in Romans 10:5ff is to disavow legalism, and he says that his message is the same as Moses.”
Anyway, my point is that this interpretation of Lev 18:5 can hardly be limited to the FV.
Blessings,
Michael
David Gadbois said,
August 4, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Michael,
But it is fairly well-acknowledged now that Murray (with essentially the same monocovenentalism as both Shepherd and Daniel Fuller) is one of the “drunk uncles” of covenant theology in the last century whose errors helped plant the seeds of FV, although they were not FV. Pity that FV has such a knack for treasuring the dross of people like Murray (his “covenant” theology) while straining out the gold (imputation of Christ’s active obedience). What you end up with is a monster that is an unrecognizable mix of so many bad strains of theology, worse than the sum total of its parts.
R. F. White said,
August 4, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Re: #13 Hi, Michael. You are absolutely right about Murray’s impact, and that of Ridderbos, for that matter. As for Fuller, as we can tell from the subtitle to his book (the one reviewed by Dr. Wallis), he was trying to forge an alternative to both covenantalism and dispensationalism. Few believe he succeeded. David is also right, in my view. I would add that Murray’s work exhibits an unresolved tension in that he made exegetical choices such as the one you cite, but he also maintained the law-gospel distinction. As they say, go figure!
barlow said,
August 5, 2007 at 8:17 am
test
Sean Gerety said,
August 5, 2007 at 8:44 am
Doug Wilson writes:
. . . whatever gave you the idea that I reject traditional imputation? I unambiguously affirm it. And that should matter for something because Scott Clark says that I am the leader of all this FV business.
First, you are a leader in “all this FV business.” Frankly, you wrote its manifesto. Not only that your little denom has become a welcome haven for like minded men in P&R churches who, God willing, will soon be looking for a new home.
Second, the rejection of the traditional doctrine of imputation which men charge you with Doug, comes from a number of sources, including when you say things like:
“In the historic Protestant view, good works are inseparable from biblical salvation. They are not a condiment to flavor a “raw” justification, but rather are definitionally related to justification…like the terms husband and wife” (173, emphasis in the original).
One can study the traditional Confessional definition of justification and will not find good works playing any part in what justifies sinners.
XI:1. Definition
Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous: not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone: not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience, to them as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith: which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.
You further confuse and conflate justification, which is imputation, with good works when you favorably cite Randy Booth in that same manifesto: “Only faithful covenant membership (i.e., those full of faith in the Savior), receive the covenant blessings, including the blessings of imputed righteousness” (175, emphasis added). Traditionally, good works are the result or “fruit” of one already justified, not something received on the condition of being a “faithful covenant member” or the result of good works.
Perhaps you are really that clueless and believe your many critics just don’t understand the nuances of your thought (which would explain why you look down on so many of them), but above ought to be unambiguous enough and for you (and Booth) the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is the result of being a faithful covenant member.
Further, just in case anyone missed it and think this isn’t your vision at all, you immediately add, “This is fundamental to the central point of this book. Election is one thing and covenant membership is another.”
Again, it is not the traditional doctrine of imputation by belief alone which assert that it is the conditions of salvation that God sets at baptism that become the dividing line between salvation and damnation: “Those who obligate themselves under the terms of the covenant law to live by faith but then defiantly refuse to believe are cut away” (134). I’ve said it before on these blogs, in your scheme of salvation “breaking covenant occurs because of unbelief, lack of faith, and because of lack of good works” (134), and by the force of logic, fulfilling the conditions of the covenant occurs by faith and good works.
You reject the historic Reformed and Biblical view of the Covenant of Grace in which Christ is the Mediator of the covenant and the Savior of his people. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is not contingent upon our “faithful covenant membership,” but solely upon Christ’s obedience to the will of the Father.
Now, you are correct and Scripture trumps tradition. Except of course, when tradition is thoroughly Scriptural, as when tradition asserts that imputation is NOT the result of our own “covenantal faithfulness.” IMO the FV have their own tradition, well, not quite their own, just not Reformed.
Robert K. said,
August 5, 2007 at 9:14 am
I’ll say it again, in differnt words: Wilson (Leithart, et al) knows he is writing garbage; and he know we know he is writing garbage; but he doesn’t care because he has no respect for Christians who hold to the truth, and he has no respect for the truth of God’s Word itself. His sole motivation is the exact same as the secular, dumb, post-modern academic environment he came out of: to defile that which is above him.
Once these guys move brazenly into the realm of apostolic biblical doctrine someone needs to do a study on whether they may be the unique case of sinning against the Holy Spirit. They give the impression they know enough of the truth; they know enough of the truth to be able to defile it. They’ve been given that, so what do they do with it? They defile it.
The dumb professor of English who sneers at the dead, white, male poets of yore and lives to inject into his students his defiling propaganda about those works is one thing. That same intellectual who moves into the territory of God’s truth and carries the same sneer with him is in a whole different game.
Mark T. said,
August 5, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Douglas Wilson is a very honorable man who only disrespects those who fail to comprehend his glorious munificence to his fellow man. But for all his brilliance and all his eminence in all things Christian, I am very thankful that few Christians follow his example by treating one another as he treats others, because if all Christians followed his lead the Christian Church would soon abandon its peacemaking mission for that of a barroom brawler whose switchblade cuts to quivering ribbons of flesh those who dare cross him.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 5, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Sean, my illustration of husband and wife describing the fundamental distinction between and yet inseparability of faith and works is a classic Reformed distinction. A husband is not a wife, and yet a husband is not a husband without a wife. Faith is not works, and yet faith is not faith apart from works. We are justified by faith alone, but never by a faith that is alone. This is standard stuff, entry level stuff. What is the matter?
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 5, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Robert K,
If you say something once and nobody cares, why do you feel the need to say it a second time? There is nothing of substance in your post, it is just contentious railing. You really ought to stop it.
Blessings,
Mahaffey
Robert K. said,
August 5, 2007 at 8:40 pm
>Faith is not works, and yet faith is not faith apart from works. We are justified by faith alone, but never by a faith that is alone. This is standard stuff, entry level stuff. What is the matter?
No, faith alone, genius. Not faith + works. Yes, I know for you to inject the darkness and bondage of your man-centered, man-fearing doctrine into Christianity you need to smuggle works into the equation, but the faith is about being God-centered, fearing only God, and resting solely in the works of Jesus Christ. Keep your unfortunate followers in the darkness and bondage of the devil’s kingdom. Be a little satellite of the Roman Catholic house of horrors. Don’t come around Christians who KNOW THE TRUTH and redefine God’s doctrine as if we can’t see through your wicked soul.
pduggie said,
August 5, 2007 at 9:00 pm
“Recently reading another horridly dumb Peter Leithart essay I think I saw what is so annoying about Federal Visionists”
Lane, I think I called someone on your blog stupid ONCE, and you warned me I would be banned. I repented, since I’m wise enough to learn that namecalling is unhelpful.
Robert K. said,
August 5, 2007 at 10:07 pm
The essay is titled Why Protestants Can’t Write. It’s a horridly dumb essay. Par for the course for Mr. Leithart. (And for the record Mr. Leithart in the essay was also engaging in what is a distinctive for FVers: yanking Protestant - usually Reformed/Calvinist, but Protestants in general as well - chains. Again, they are dumb pomo academics who’ve decided to turn their ‘rhetorical weapons’ on God’s truth. The kind of rhetorical weapons that impress the kind of minds that buy everything their teachers sell them. May their followers see the light.)
pduggie quotes Trueman said,
August 5, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Lane, I think I called someone on your blog stupid ONCE, and you warned me I would be banned. I repented, since I’m wise enough to learn that namecalling is unhelpful.
Mark T. said,
August 6, 2007 at 6:47 am
Wilson will be qualified to argue for faith and works when he adorns his religion with works consistent with the Christian faith. Until then, he should demonstrate some of that “teachability” and “willingness to stand corrected” that he professed when he signed the recent FV statement.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 6, 2007 at 8:48 am
So, according to Robert K., being Reformed means being antinomian. Thanks.
Every Reformed minister or author I have ever read has echoed James in saying that Faith without works is dead. The works are most certainly not the ground of our justification, ad Doug Wilson clearly argues here, but they are a necessary consequence. These are the fruits that any true faith produces. But it is the faith - itself a gift from God - that is that ground of our justification.
If Rev. Wilson is to be criticized, it most certainly is not on this point. And I’ll take that classic Reformed doctrine over the neo-Reformed antinomianism of Anne Hutchinson and Robert K. any day.
greenbaggins said,
August 6, 2007 at 9:39 am
Folks, namecalling is unhelpful, as Paul has pointed out. Please refrain on both sides from namecalling. Let’s discuss the issues, please. As I have said, this is not a court of the church. I reserve the right to express my opinions on the substance of the FV in any way, shape, or form I so desire. The word “heresy” has been used on this blog, as has been said before. I have carefully defined it. To answer Steven W.’s question, I do think the gospel is at stake. It is more in danger with some FV teachers than with others. But I see my goal as more modest here: I am merely trying to prove that the FV is out of accord with the WS. That is my goal.
at once more with feeling said,
August 6, 2007 at 11:14 am
[...] GreenBaggins comments keep piling up. First, I’m obsessed with lesbian vampires and now I wear women’s underwear. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
Robert K. said,
August 6, 2007 at 12:00 pm
>”So, according to Robert K., being Reformed means being antinomian. Thanks.”
Once you are dead to the law and alive in Christ you *want* to engage in spiritual warfare. You want to stand your ground against your Old Man, the World, and the Devil. You want to mortify the Old Man, separate from the World, and stand your ground against the Devil. Those are things that are the fruit of justification. FVists know this, just as the Roman magisterium knows it, but they choose to use accusations of “antinomianism”, just as the apostle Paul’s accusers did, so as to maintain the fear of man and to maintain their man-centered bondage of dead works righteousness on any they can keep in that darkness.
Steven W said,
August 6, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Wow this is getting really outlandish.
Christopher said,
August 6, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Hrm, a Reformed troll, me thinks?
Robert K. said,
August 6, 2007 at 4:43 pm
“Hrm, a Reformed troll, me thinks?”
From the same people who call John Owen a drug addict, this is a compliment.
Christopher said,
August 7, 2007 at 12:57 am
Am I in the right place….?
Robert K. said,
August 7, 2007 at 9:36 am
The place you need to be is any place where you will be given a basic grasp of law and gospel. I’d advise you to read the Word of God first though. Just read it. Humbly.
pduggan said,
August 7, 2007 at 10:05 am
“I’d advise you to read the Word of God first though. Just read it. Humbly.”
But Scott Clark says
“Remember, since the 16th century, revisionists and errorists have always said, “We’re just following the Bible.” That was the loudest refrain of the Socinians, who ended up denying the Trinity. They denied the deity of Jesus, the substitutionary atonement and justification by works all on the ground that, they were just following the Bible. All heretics quote Scripture.
The question in this controversy is not the normativity of the Bible but who gets to interpret it. “
Robert K. said,
August 7, 2007 at 10:43 am
Yes, exactly, Clark is saying there don’t read the Bible. Now I see why you FVists are so well-respected as thinkers…
Sean Gerety said,
August 7, 2007 at 8:01 pm
To think I almost missed this.
Doug Wilson writes:
Sean, my illustration of husband and wife describing the fundamental distinction between and yet inseparability of faith and works is a classic Reformed distinction. A husband is not a wife, and yet a husband is not a husband without a wife.
I am well aware of your illustration of husband and wife, but it is not Reformed at all. Also, you seem to employ this little analogy in all sorts of novel ways like when you said, “No one assumes that every husband will automatically have a successful marriage. Nor should we assume that every Christian will go to Heaven.” Or, as per your denial of nominal Christians:
As Dr. Robbins insightfully noted:
To say this is extremely problematic is an understatement Doug. This is exactly what Lane has been objecting to these many blogs that somehow, through the miracle of baptism by an “authorized representative of the Christian church,” reprobates, even reprobate infants, are brought into the same relation to Christ. This isn’t Christianity Doug and it’s certainly isn’t Reformed.
Faith is not works, and yet faith is not faith apart from works. We are justified by faith alone, but never by a faith that is alone. This is standard stuff, entry level stuff. What is the matter?
The problem is faith is very much faith apart from works or else saying a sinner is justified by faith alone is just meaningless words as it is in your (false) gospel. As anyone can see by reading your defense of the so-called Federal Vision, faith and faithfulness are synonymous and nominal Christians are simply nonexistent.. If you cannot logically distinguish between belief and the consequences of belief (i.e., correctly harmonize Paul and James), then I fail to see how you can differentiate between justification and sanctification and anyone reading your book will see that you do not. Not surprisingly your chapter on “The Greatness of Justification by Faith” discusses the role of good works in sanctification. Yet, in spite of your conflation of belief with works, Paul said, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” You’re right, this is standard entry level stuff Doug.
Joint FV Statement - Scripture and Hermeneutics « Reformed Musings said,
August 7, 2007 at 10:22 pm
[...] others have been taking up the slack. Green Baggins wrote a nice piece in On Scripture, followed up with Hermeneutics. In the comments, the Federal Vision advocates take up their same [...]
Christopher said,
August 9, 2007 at 12:02 am
Robert, one question about comment #37. Are you contending that Scott Clark is an FVist?