Decrees and Covenant « Green Baggins

Decrees and Covenant

August 7, 2007 at 11:49 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)

The next paragraph of the FV document has to do with the intersection of the decree and the covenant. I must confess also to being disappointed by this paragraph, as with the previous paragraph. Nothing is clarified in this paragraph, and the errors are perpetuated.

In the first paragraph of this section, I agree with everything up until the last sentence, which reads: “Those covenant members who are not elect in the decretal sense enjoy the common operations of the Spirit in varying degrees, but not in the same way that those who are elect do.” Again, the first part of the sentence is fine. But when they seek to distinguish between the benefits the elect have and the non-elect have, they fudge. Anyone who cannot say that the difference between the elect and the non-elect is the difference between having the ordo salutis and not having any of the ordo salutis is not confessional. This is crystal clear from WCF 3.6, and WCF 10.4. Look especially at the latter. Here it is in full:

Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.

Note here that the people under discussion are those who have received the common operations of the Spirit. In other words, they are members of the visible church. Right up to the colon are such people talked about. After the colon we are clearly talking about pagans (”not professing the Christian religion”). If there are two things we can say about the former category of people, it is that they NEVER TRULY come unto Christ, and that they CANNOT be saved. Both of these things the FV’ers have been willing in the past to deny about non-elect members of the visible church. They harp on the fact that covenantal union is true union. The Confession here clearly states that there is no such true union with Christ for the non-elect. Secondly, the FV has been willing to say that the non-elect in some sense are saved. The Confession states that they cannot be saved. No doubt the FV will repeat its tired and easily combustible defense that their definition of “truly” and “saved” is not the same definition as the Confession’s. That’s quite a bit like Clinton saying “That depends on what you mean by the word ‘is’.” Is it true union or not? Is it salvation or not? Saying that there is a difference between elect and non-elect solves exactly nothing of the problem. Saying that there is a semantic range of meaning in the Bible doesn’t solve the problem. The semantic range of terms is not the issue here. The issue is the formulation, the FV formulation.

We affirm the reality of the decrees, but deny that the decrees “trump” the covenant.

Well, this is clear as mud. The decree of God can be thwarted by the covenant? Is that what they mean? The decree must somehow be mutable and immutable at the same time? The decree of God is unchangeable, eternal, and infinite. Is not the covenant part of God’s decree? So they set the covenant against the decree and immediately claim that they have not done so. This is disingenuous at best.

95 Comments

Eric F. Langborgh said,

August 7, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Oh come on! The members of the FV are all over the map on this. What they state here is the extent to which they can agree. But how is the mere statement - “Those covenant members who are not elect in the decretal sense enjoy the common operations of the Spirit in varying degrees, but not in the same way that those who are elect do” - in conflict with “Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit”? Sounds the same to me.

Further, there is no mention here that salvation comes to the non-elect members of the covenant, so you are either taking down a strawman or you are going beyond the statement and implying something supposedly said by one or more members of the FV, but not others. To the extent that anyone actually believes that the non-elect are ever in some decretal sense saved, I am right there with you, Rev. Keister. But if they aren’t saying that, why so strongly suggest that they are?

Finally, I don’t see what the TR problem is with this idea of covenantal union. How can a branch be severed from a tree if it is not - in some sense - truly united to the tree? (Rom. 11:17-21) Obviously, as a good Calvinist, I believe strongly in the perseverance of the saints. But apostasy from the visible covenant is real, and warned against repeatedly in Scripture, but the Old and New Testament. Consider especially this passage from Hebrews: “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.” (3:12) Immediately following that verse, the writer says that the example of the Israelites who fell away in the wilderness is given as a warning to us - do not harden your hearts and all away as they did!

So, if I am reading them correctly, the signers of this FV document are saying that, pastorally, we should echo the writer to the Hebrews: “Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it…. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest….” (4:1,11) And how do we do that? Through faith in the promise of God. For “we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope [in Jesus Christ].” (3:6b) “For we who have believed enter that [promised] rest.” (4:3)
pduggan said,

August 7, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Yeah, lane you’re misreading this. This is saying that even the common operations (common to elect and non-elect) are experienced differently by both. It isn’t touching on “ordo saludis” stuff at all. Or if it is, you haven’t shown me it is.

I’m more interested with your reaction to

“We deny that the unchangeable nature of these decrees prevents us from using the same language in covenantal ways as we describe our salvation from within that covenant. We further deny this covenantal usage is “pretend” language, even where the language and terminology sometimes overlaps with the language of the decrees.”

1. Do you think we *are* prevented with so using language?
2. Would you say we can use it as “pretend” language?
3. Is “judgment of charity” another way of saying “pretend language”?
4. why or why not?
jared said,

August 7, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Lane,

I thought you said you were going to “take them at their word” in your analysis of this statement. They say, as you quote, “Those covenant members who are not elect in the decretal sense enjoy the common operations of the Spirit in varying degrees, but not in the same way that those who are elect do.” You say you have no problem with the first part of this sentence but not the second part. Your reason? Clearly they are departing from the WCF because their statement isn’t worded the same as the WCF. Is this supposed to be a convincing analysis? Is it taking them at their word? Instead you read into the statement what you perceive (for whatever reason, assuming you aren’t letting “past behavior dictate future response” to be a deficiency. Does the statment say that the non-elect enjoy any of the ordo benefits? Does this sentence imply it? The sections you quote from the WCF can fit right well, conflict free, with this sentence in the statement. What I see here is an eisegetical reading of the statement and a misapplication of the Confession to that statement as a result. In other words, neither the WCF nor this statement say anything about the non-elect receiving ordo benefits.

You say:

They harp on the fact that covenantal union is true union. The Confession here clearly states that there is no such true union with Christ for the non-elect.

But the Confession says no such thing in either 3.6 or 10.4. It clearly states that the non-elect have no access to salvation and this is certainly not in conflict with the FV statement. Now, here is where the FV can “harp” on its understanding of “union” with all of the vine metaphor and whatnot, but your analysis here is off the mark. The problem is that when you see “true union” you (understandably) think saving union, for which other “union” could be “true”, right? However, there’s a difference between a true union, as in not fake/false (e.g. the union really does confer benefits) and a true union, as in salvation. This is the distinction that the Confession does not make (and, apparently, does not even allow) but that FV advocates are pushing. Decretal election and covenantal election may as well be decretal union and convenantal union respectively in this regard.

You continue your analysis by quoting the statement, “We affirm the reality of the decrees, but deny that the decrees ‘trump’ the covenant.” You then proceed to claim that this is “clear as mud” and somehow manage to interpret them as pitting the decrees and the covenant against each other! Maybe if we quote a little further: “We do not set them against each other, but expect them to harmonize perfectly as God works out all things in accordance with His will.” (emphais mine) What, exactly, is unclear about that? A practical example of decrees not trumping covenant is the FV understanding of “union.” God’s eternal decrees have decided who will and who will not be saved. Likewise they have decided that there will be those in union (er, I mean in covenant) with Jesus who won’t be saved but who will, nonetheless, enjoy some of the benefits of being in union (or covenant) with Him. So the decrees don’t “trump” covenant realities and, in fact, they do (and will) harmonize in accordance with God’s ultimate plan. This paragraph, as a whole, is not difficult to understand or unclear; though it may (may) differ with the Confession.
Fred Greco said,

August 7, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Except that when the Westminster Standards speak of those who experience the “common operations of the Spirit,” they do not have in mind the non-elect within the visible Church. They have primarily in mind the non-elect *period*. Notice that WCF 10.4’s language occurs in the context of distinguishing the effectual call of the Spirit (10.1 - “All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call“) from general call of the gospel (10.4 - “Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit”)

So why the insistence on the part of the FV (and grasping at straws in the Confession) to say that something is true of non-elect members of the visible Church (on their way to hell) that is also true and being said of non-elect persons outside the visible Church (also on their way to hell)?

Lane, thanks for calling this out for what it is - a vain attempt by the FV advocates to find anything in the Confession to support their bad doctrines regarding “saving” benefits that accrue to the non-elect.

Bye, bye, perseverance.
pduggan said,

August 7, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Mr Greco:

You’re ignoring the most important term in “common operations”

Common.

Common grace is grace that is common to both the just and the unjust

Common operations are those that are common to both elect and reprobate.

I could be a strict subscriptionist and affirm *that*, and I certainly hope the PCA would never say I had to take an exception because I thought that some operations are common to both elect and non-elect.

Why else call them “common” operations. Common amongst what group?

Is there anything you can point to historically to defend your view? It seems novel.
pduggan said,

August 7, 2007 at 2:33 pm

I’ll add that the scripture proofs seems to encompass only those who have made some kind of public profession.
jared said,

August 7, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Fred,

The FV isn’t grasping at anything, it’s pointing out a short-coming on the part of the Standards in this regard. This doesn’t mean the standards are wrong, and FV advocates aren’t saying the Standards are wrong. Let me repeat that: FV isn’t, as a whole, saying that the Westminster Standards are wrong here, rather they are saying the Standards don’t give the whole picture. I don’t know anyone who thinks the Standards are 100% all there is to Scripture and theology; except for maybe Robert K. and Sean Gerety. This area is one that FV sees lacking in the Standards; is it wrong for them to point this out? Is it impossible that the Confession might be lacking in this area? And even if you don’t think the Confession is lacking in this area, how does it justify calling FVists heretics and false teachers as some here are prone to do?
Robert K. said,

August 7, 2007 at 3:26 pm

“I don’t know anyone who thinks the Standards are 100% all there is to Scripture and theology . . .”

What’s not there doesn’t neutralize justification by faith alone, or the fact that regeneration is effected, when it is effected, by the Word and the Spirit, and not ritual and man.

The Westminster Standards are a document that called (calls) the Pope the antichrist. To read doctrines of the Pope and his church into a document that calls the Pope the antichrist is to engage in not only vain activity, but deadly vain activity.

There will come a time when the ability of FVists to troll Bible-believing Christians will end. You’ll move on to whatever your dark leaders lead you on to (theonomy, FVism, ?), or you’ll give your souls to the Roman Catholic bondage and darkness. Meanwhile, God will continue to call His own and gather His own into His Kingdom; and His own can’t be fooled. Annoyed, yes, but not fooled…
Davey Henreckson said,

August 7, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Robert,

I’m not sure any profit will come of this, but I wanted to ask: Do you believe that if I hold to the views from the recent FV statement I will go to hell unless I repent?

And to anyone else,

Is Robert just being consistent with the kind of sentiment expressed by other FV-opponents who call the FV a “different gospel”?
Anne Ivy said,

August 7, 2007 at 4:01 pm

FWIW, the FV seems to be Arminianism with a thin Calvinist veneer, for the most part.

Since I don’t believe Arminians teach a different gospel, and there are doubtless untold numbers of them in glory, simply holding to Arminian/FV theology isn’t damning.

However, they’re both significantly wrong, and it’s reasonable to hold the line with fervor and conviction against significant - albeit not inherently damnable - error. No point sitting on one’s hands while watching one’s church or denomination go doctrinally backward.
Robert K. said,

August 7, 2007 at 4:02 pm

>”I’m not sure any profit will come of this, but I wanted to ask: Do you believe that if I hold to the views from the recent FV statement I will go to hell unless I repent?”

If you hold to FV views it’s simply a sign you’ve yet to humble yourself to God-centered sound biblical doctrine. Your problem, in other words, is not what you know or or currently able to understand regarding apostolic biblical doctrine, your problem is vanity, pride, and self-will. Your FV doctrine marks you as being still in rebellion to God and God’s plan. The currently unregenerate (the proud unregenerate) always demand to exalt ritual and man above the effectual work of the Word and the Spirit. To put man in the place of God. Romanists do this, FVists do this. This is accompanied by a strong fear and reverence of man exalted over the fear of God. This also includes a policing and enforcing of the fear of man over the fear of God.

What is getting you attention now (as opposed to common Arminians or Mormons or whatever) is you - you FVists - are self-identifying as something that you are not. You’re calling yourselves Calvinists and Reformed when you’re neither. (Imagine if Arminians started calling themselves Calvinists and arguing for Arminian doctrine from Reformed and Calvinist sources and so on, this is what you are doing.) This is insidious. This is what makes your campaign devilish. Because in all the various churches and denominations and schools of theology it is Reformed Theology that is where the truth of sound biblical doctrine resides. You’re attempting to attack and distort and defile the truth *from within.* This, by the way, is a crime God comes down especially hard on. If you are merely a duped follower of the FV leaders try to gather together within you whatever you can gather from however much your conscience is able to speak to you clearly, and break away from their vain and devilish nonsense, and engage the Word and the Spirit humbly.
Davey Henreckson said,

August 7, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Robert,

Thanks for the quick reply. I don’t know if this will be a comfort at all to either of us, but I can’t recognize myself in the portrait you’ve painted of (what I assume is) your representative FVer.
Dean Bekkering said,

August 7, 2007 at 4:18 pm

All

Could it be that the FV point regarding John 15:2; Rom 11:17-21; Heb 3:12; and Heb 10:29 has to do with the visible church rather than in Christ.

John 15:2 - IN ME - Is that In Christ or In the Visible Church as the body of Christ.

Rom 11:17-21 - “BROKEN OFF FROM WHAT - Broken off from Christ? Or broken off from the Visible representation of Christ?

Heb 3:12 “DEPART FROM THE LIVING GOD”
Dean Bekkering said,

August 7, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Sorry I hit the send button on accident!

More to come
tim prussic said,

August 7, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Pastor Lane, until the last two posts, I’ve been quite impressed with your helpful analysis of the FV and especially your interactions with Pastor Wilson. These two recent posts sound like they’ve been written by a different man.

The language of the confession itself is a bit open ended with respect to the common operations of the Spirit. What EXACTLY are they? No list, huh? Quite so.

Also, we can certainly speak of being in Christ in different senses, can we not? I think the confession (10:4) uses “truly come unto Christ” in the sense of the effectual call (the title of the chapter), which is (by interal WCF definition) reserved for “all those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only.” There must be those, however, who falsely come unto Christ, or else the adverb “truly” is superfluous. They’re coming must be coming. They’re not coming to a different Christ, right? In fact, these false comers to the true Christ share in some or all of the same common graces as do the elect who’ve truly come to Christ. What’s more, they share in the same earthly administration of the covenant as the elect (which is merely another way of saying the same thing). However, they’ll be cursed in that covenant and cut out, while the elect will be blessed and persevere in God’s grace by God’s grace. Gimme a hearty SOLA GRATIA here! None of this seems to me to be too difficult nor ought it be too controversial.

What might be more controversial is the following. Pastor, can we rightly speak of sharing in the ordo, but not sharing in it truly? If we may speak of coming unto Christ but not coming unto him truly, why may we not also speak of basic elements of the ordo in the same way? May I not say that a NECM’s been regenerated, but not truly? Why’s it okay to speak of coming to Christ with the adverb “truly” and not of coming to the specific blessings of the same without adding the adverb “truly”? Why’s it okay with reference to the person of Christ (the greater) but not with reference to the benefits of Christ (the lesser)?
tim prussic said,

August 7, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Davey H., I think you’ll find that your interactions with ol’ bobby k. are basically useless. He just like to sound off and REALLY has a hard time interacting with REAL people and REAL positions. You are a REAL person with REAL positions. Therefore, bobby k.’s gunna have a hard time interacting with you!
Robert K. said,

August 7, 2007 at 4:38 pm

>”Thanks for the quick reply. I don’t know if this will be a comfort at all to either of us, but I can’t recognize myself in the portrait you’ve painted of (what I assume is) your representative FVer.”

It’s difficult to see in ourselves what we are currently blind to regarding ourselves. But that’s only half your problem. Your main problem is you are trolling a school of theology (I’ll call Calvinism/Reformed doctrine that) by claiming to hold to it while actually holding to what that school most defines itself against. You’re just screwing around, in other words. It’s very easy to annoy people who value highly apostolic biblical doctrine. But what do you gain from it? I mean in the end? And it’s very easy to come into an environment like Reformed Theology where there are people at all levels and stages of understanding of Reformed Theology and confusing them using common sophistic language one finds in the modern day academy. This is not difficult to do. But what do you get from it? I mean, aside from the laughs a troll gets in yanking chains and what not? What do you get in the end? You won’t have a good end.

God sees who is concerned to defend the faith and sound biblical doctrine. God sees who makes the effort to stave off the forces, and often overwhelmidng forces, coming from the world and the devil. And God sees who is mocking His Word and who is mocking the truth and who thinks it’s something to do to annoy and troll His elect who have a high and serious valuation for His Word and His doctrine. God sees all this.
tim prussic said,

August 7, 2007 at 4:59 pm

!!!
tim prussic said,

August 7, 2007 at 5:19 pm

bobby k saith: “What’s not there doesn’t neutralize justification by faith alone, or the fact that regeneration is effected, when it is effected, by the Word and the Spirit, and not ritual and man.”

timmyp asketh (not bobby k, but anyone else): Is not the Word a ritualistic part of the weekly ritual of sabbath worship? Do we not gather at the appointed time, in part, to hear the Word over and over and over and over and over and over again throughout our lives?

In part, the opposition of the FV is really based in a gnostic notion of how the Spirit of God really works. They want invisible operation not despoiled by icky thinks like people and church. They want invisible spiritual operation without external means on the invisible elect (known only to folks like bobby k.) to make an invisible church. The Reformed have the Spirit working sovereignly though appointed means, specifically Word and Sacraments. In the ordinary course of events, if we lack the MEANS of grace, we lack the grace.
Robert K. said,

August 7, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Tim, it’s actually good to see you show yourself so blatantly now (and let nobody say Doug Wilson is not these people’s leader), but let me just ask you one little question: have you never heard of evangelism? (1 Thessalonian 1.) And is John 3:8 gnostic? Tim, do those of us effectually called by the Word and the Spirit outside of any visible church need to apologize to clerics and church buildings for that fact? Is the Holy Spirit constrained by what Tim and Doug demand? Is not your comment a classic communication of the resentment of the proud unregenerate…?
Robert K. said,

August 7, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Move close to God, and He will move close to you, Tim. He tells us that. James 4 is one place He tells us that. Engage His Word. Pray to have the Holy Spirit given to you. This is how you move close to Him. Humble yourself to Him and to His Word and to the Holy Spirit.
tim prussic said,

August 7, 2007 at 6:58 pm

bobby k., I asked my FV advisor, the Pope, about your advise in post 21… he recommends that I do not follow it. He said it sounds too Arminian for him. Also, what is the “evangelism” of which you speak?!?

Thanks, as usual, for your substantive comments, bob.
tim prussic said,

August 7, 2007 at 6:59 pm

advise should be advice. sorry - keeping nouns and verbs straight REALLY throws me!
pduggie said,

August 7, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Robert K:

did you just claim that you or someone you know was effectually called outside of the visible church?

I suppose its possible, though extraordinary.
jared said,

August 7, 2007 at 7:53 pm

tim prussic,

I like your interactions with Robert K.; saves me some of the trouble
Robert K. said,

August 7, 2007 at 8:34 pm

>”did you just claim that you or someone you know was effectually called outside of the visible church? I suppose its possible, though extraordinary.”

If you actually believe this it explains alot. It’s just proof that with the FV we’re dealing with the proud unregenerate. Or the hardened.

Tim, it’s not Arminian if it’s God talking to you. James 4:8.
pduggie said,

August 7, 2007 at 8:44 pm

like you didn’t talk to anybody else, Robert? Just picked up a bible for no reason and read it and became a convert?
Robert K. said,

August 7, 2007 at 8:56 pm

>”like you didn’t talk to anybody else, Robert? Just picked up a bible for no reason and read it and became a convert?”

Yes, this is exactly what I said…

On another thread, Doug Wilson doesn’t want to read this, even though he will, and then pretend that he didn’t:

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/on-scripture/#comment-25807
reformedmusings said,

August 7, 2007 at 9:36 pm

pduggan,

RE: #5

You’re ignoring the most important term in “common operations”

Common.

Common grace is grace that is common to both the just and the unjust

Common operations are those that are common to both elect and reprobate.

The problem comes into how the FV defines that term “common” and how the orthodox Reformed define them in the context of the WCF. I presented the classic Reformed definition of those common operations in this post:

http://reformedmusings.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/common-operations-of-the-spirit/

Note that classically, those common operations do not include justification, adoption, or sanctification which FV attributes to the baptized reprobate under the guise of a mythical “objective covenant.” FV uses the same terms as the Standards, but they redefine them to mean different things by those terms.
reformedmusings said,

August 7, 2007 at 9:53 pm

I addressed the classic handling of the branches in John 15:2 at length in this post:

http://reformedmusings.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/john-152-the-same-sap/

In classic, confessional Reformed theology, there’s no help for the Federal Vision in those verses. It does show, though, how the FV imposes an artificial, external framework of an “objective covenant” upon the Scriptures and then reinterprets key verses in the light of that new framework.
Joint FV Statement - Divine Decrees « Reformed Musings said,

August 8, 2007 at 1:01 am

[...] paragraphs set the stage for their redefining the Westminster Standards in particular. Once again, Green Baggins has a great post on this section. I take a slightly different path [...]
pduggie said,

August 8, 2007 at 7:15 am

29: That’s all well and good, but Greco is making a different claim, that the elect and non-elect don’t enjoy the same common operations either.

And I’ll note that the statement, pace Lane, doesn’t say anything about a common experience of justification. It simply says

“Those covenant members who are not elect in the decretal sense enjoy the common operations of the Spirit in varying degrees, but not in the same way that those who are elect do”

I see nothing objectionable in this, Do you refromedmusings? Lane and Greco do.
greenbaggins said,

August 8, 2007 at 8:49 am

To all my critics:

WLC 65:

What SPECIAL (as in exclusive) benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ? A. The members of the **invisible** church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.

This expressly says that only the elect enjoy union with Christ. The non-elect do not enjoy union with Christ. By saying that the non-elect enjoy union with Christ, the FV fudges the boundary between the elect and the non-elect, such that they have this thing in common.

Secondly, for all your desire that I should read the FV documents carefully, none of you seemed to have read my post carefully. I *already* acknowledged that the FV’ers *say* they do not attempt to pit the covenant against the decree. See the second half of this sentence: “So they set the covenant against the decree and immediately claim that they have not done so.”

Their saying so doesn’t make it so, quite frankly. God’s decree trumps everything. To say otherwise is to say that God’s decree can be thwarted. Shall man say to God, “Thus far you shall come, and no farther?” I think not. And contra Paul, Wilkins has said that both the elect and the non-elect enjoy justification (_Federal Vision_, pg. 59, bullet point 13). So that washes out Paul’s objections rather decisively.

I don’t think that Paul ever uses terms like “justification” and “sanctification” in covenantal ways. He speaks using a judgment of charity. And he can use the term “sanctification” metaphorically. But not in this supposed “covenantal” sense. What irritates the critics no end is that the ordo salutis terms that have been defined for centuries by much better men than we will ever be, are now being used in completely different ways. This introduces confusion into the mix. I find it highly ironic that it is the critics who are accused of being confused, when it is the FV’ers whose theology makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

BOQ Does the statment say that the non-elect enjoy any of the ordo benefits? EOQ I only need to answer this with a counter-question: where do they guard so very carefully against attributing ordo salutis benefits to the non-elect? I find it in absolutely no place in many FV’ers writings. And given the FACT that Wilkins has consistently attributed ordo benefits to the non-elect, I’m sure you can understand why I am looking for just that qualification, and am hyper-sensitive to it.
Terry W. West said,

August 8, 2007 at 9:32 am

Lane,

You said:“What SPECIAL (as in exclusive) benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ? A. The members of the **invisible** church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.

This expressly says that only the elect enjoy union with Christ. The non-elect do not enjoy union with Christ. By saying that the non-elect enjoy union with Christ, the FV fudges the boundary between the elect and the non-elect, such that they have this thing in common.”

Are you sure you are properly defining “special”? This an honest questions from a desire to understand both sides of the debate.

I looked up the word “special” here is Dictionary.com’s definition of the word as an adjective:

1. of a distinct or particular kind or character: a special kind of key.
2. being a particular one; particular, individual, or certain: You’d better call the special number.
3. pertaining or peculiar to a particular person, thing, instance, etc.; distinctive; unique: the special features of a plan.
4. having a specific or particular function, purpose, etc.: a special messenger.
5. distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion; to fix something special.
6. extraordinary; exceptional, as in amount or degree; especial: special importance.
7. being such in an exceptional degree; particularly valued: a special friend.

Now if I apply this definition of special to WLC 65, I can conclude the following from the answer, the invisible church enjoy “special”union and “special” communion, because these are given as examples of the “special” benefits

Now we would never say that simply because there is a “special” key, or messenger, etc. (using the examples given at Dictionary.com of the word’s usage) that it follows therefore there are no other types of keys, messengers, friends, etc. So why can I not say the same with union and communion? If the invisible church enjoys “special” union/communion how does this exclude any other less than “special” union/communion? If I have a “special” friend it doesn’t follow therefore that I have no other less than special friends (or keys, plans, occasions, messengers, etc.) right?

Again, Lane, please don’t view these questions as a defense for FV, but as my way of trying to examine your argument to see if it can be sustained.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
pduggan said,

August 8, 2007 at 9:34 am

“This expressly says that only the elect enjoy union with Christ in grace and glory”

There, fixed it for you
greenbaggins said,

August 8, 2007 at 9:54 am

Terry, I would say that if you compare and contrast question 65 with question 63, you will understand that the word “special” means “exclusive to.” The other definitions of the word are not current in the time of the Westminster Assembly. You need to make sure that your definitions of “special” are not anachronistic.
pduggan said,

August 8, 2007 at 9:54 am

1. My “objection” (I think, I’m not sure exaclty what you’re refering to) is related to teh FV statement, not what wilkins says in the FV book, however it may be characterized.

And God’s decree shouldn’t trump EVERYTHING, since you admit that the judgement of charity is not so trumped. There are those who would trump even the judgment of charity with the decree: hypercalvinists.

Can you answer these yes/no?

1. Do you think we *are* prevented with so using language?
2. Would you say we can use it as “pretend” language?
3. Is “judgment of charity” another way of saying “pretend language”?
4. why or why not?
greenbaggins said,

August 8, 2007 at 10:02 am

Paul, God’s decree trumps everything in the sense that nothing else can happen but God’s decree. True covenant theology always acknowledges this. Judgment of charity is not functioning on the level of the final destiny of people. In fact, it isn’t even related.

1. It hasn’t been proven that “justification” and other terms can be used “covenantally” if the judgment of charity explains the passages just as well or better (and in such a way that it still has its normal salvific meaning). What does Paul mean by justification? That is what the WS summarize. I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that *Paul* uses the term any differently. The different use of the term is in James, where it means not “declaration by God of a person’s innocence and right to eternal life by the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience,” but rather “shown to be genuine.”

2. Use what as pretend language?

3. No, it isn’t. It is a simple acknowledgement that Paul cannot read the hearts of men. So, if a person is in good standing, we treat him that way.

4. It isn’t a pretending that something isn’t true when it is, or vice versa. It is rather giving someone the benefit of the doubt.
Dean Bekkering said,

August 8, 2007 at 10:05 am

All

“We affirm the reality of the decrees, but deny that the decrees “trump” the covenant.”

What does this mean in light of previous statements?

Steve Wilkins “When the confession says that these no-elect people “never truly come unto Christ,” it means that they do not receive Christ with a faith that perseveres unto final salvation. These confession does not address the question of whether they are able [to] come unto Christ in some other sense and participate in some sense in the blessings of redemption that ultimately fall short of the fullness of salvation.” http://auburnavenue.org/documents/wilkins_presbytery_response.htm Pg 3

John Barach: “they were genuinely in Christ, but they were taken away because they failed to abide in Christ” (AATPC, pg. 150, lines 47-48).

How does one get faith in Steve statement? Is that by grace alone in faith alone or is that by baptism? If it is not “pretend” language then in a “real” way can I continue to “abide in Christ” if I am part of the covenant but not elect? How would this “really” work out in a very non pretend way?

THEY need to clarify what they mean by these statements rather than us interpreting what they do or do not mean. They provide no clarification in this section, but only open the door for one to ask the logical conclusion of their statements. Isn’t this the point of systematic theology?

If these statements are allowed to stand in harmony with the Reformed view of election they will cause confusion for this generation and future generations as others build on what they do not say now.

Future generations will interpret “we do not set them against each other, but expect them to harmonize perfectly as God works out all things in accordance with His will” to mean we can throw the systematic heritage out the window since no one really knows anything.

Dean Bekkering
Vern Crisler said,

August 8, 2007 at 10:16 am

Hi Dean,

What they mean by these statements is that if you don’t kowtow to their ecclesiastical authority, you’re salvation is in danger. It’s all about objectivizing the covenant.
Vern
Eric F. Langborgh said,

August 8, 2007 at 10:18 am

Here’s why cries of “heresy” concerning the FV just do not resonate with me. And keep in mind that I am not FV - I am simply incapable of reading and comprehending everything out there on this subject. I am as Reformed as one can be, imo, and I have yet to find one word in any of the Reformed confessions that I have a problem with. But I am much in debt to the teaching of Doug Wilson for bringing me to the Reformed Faith, and to a pro-paedobaptism understanding of the covenant, and to Presbyterianism, and for my continued walk in the Lord. Others - like Leithart - have influenced me, too. (I’m less familiar with other FVers). So have those who still bear the TR stamp of approval, such as Jim Boice, JI Packer, Michael Horton, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Augustine, Irenaeus, John Stott, Mark Dever, RC Sproul, John Piper, AW Pink, John Bunyan, Richard Sibbes, JC Ryle, Graeme Goldsworthy, C.S. Lewis, William Webster, etc., etc., etc. - in no particular order (such listing is necessary to avoid the tar and feathers around here, though probably still not enough). When it comes to the five solas, when it comes to TULIP, when it comes justification by faith alone and to Jesus’ finished work on the cross, I doubt I would find any disagreement with any of these guys (except for maybe a bit of Luther, obviously, and the pre-Reformation formulations of Augustine, Irenaeus, etc).

But here’s my point: I have most every book Doug Wilson has ever written on my bookshelf. I read his blog and his interaction with his anti-FV critics. Leithart, too, to a lesser extent. I do not see where they have a disagreement here, either. I see where you don’t like Wilson’s word choice, or some of his other teachings, but I find no conflict with the essentials of the faith. I am flabbergasted by how many times, esp. in the face of clearly blatant misquotes and misrepresentations by Guy Waters, R. Scott Clark and some others, that Wilson can correct those misunderstandings and reaffirm his sola fide convictions, for instance, and his critics still claim he denies it! I see assertions that something he teaches over there is in conflict with something over here, and amounts then to a denial, but I see harmony at best and inconsequence at worst.

I do see, as Kevin Johnson has pointed out at his blog, how the FV has unnecessarily made things confusing at times. But I do not see where that confusion amounts to a denial of the essentials of the faith. And I continue to be amazed at the repeated claims made here, in the link in #31, and elsewhere that the FV is teaching that decretally saving faith is granted to unbelievers and the reprobate by virtue of the covenant, despite their repeated qualifications that that is not at all what they mean. So you hate that the word “election” can be used to refer to anything else but God’s sovereignly and immutably saving certain sinners to eternal life. But God is sovereign over all things, right?, including His choice of those who will go to hell, and even those who will be members of the visible church but who will ultimately fall away, never having been elected to justification and final glorification. But given that God is still God over the apostate, we can certainly understand that he “elected” them to their condition, including their temporary position as professing members of the visible church.

I read the FV and I see them explaining their positions in just this sort of way. I get uneasy with some of the darker brews sometimes, but even there I can at least recognize their qualifications and take them for what they are, instead of judging their hearts to be deceitful. Perhaps they would be wise to give up this term (“election”) for use in the sense described above, but understanding them from their perspective makes it clear, to me at least, that they are not in conflict with the WS when it comes to God’s eternal decree unto life for the invisible church. Where you see only an either/or, I recognize an “and more,” as I believe they, at least the ones I am most familiar with, intend.

A whole lot more charity is in order here, methinks. I refuse to join the mob at the fiery pillar.

I will continue to read Greenbaggins, because he is by far the most reasonable and fair in this debate. I have long since found Clark and others to be gratingly obtuse and venomous, or at least too full of too many Queen songs for their own good, and thus not profitable to my understanding and time. On the other side, I find Wilson and Leithart worthwhile (on this issue and many more), but can do without some of the others, who I think lash out in ways that are unhelpful, and that actually ape their worst critics.

Now, I’m just little ol’ me, not even an elder. But I know my Savior and I know He loves me, despite my sorry condition. And I know enough of His Word to not be swayed by unfavorable winds, Lord willing, nor by arguments set against positions that a fair read would indicate aren’t there, or that are based only on half the story, or that rely on misdirection just in case they aren’t convincing in their own right. I suspect that I’m not the only one here who finds him or herself scratching their head and saying, “Huh? where did they come up with that?!” Hence, my points in comment #1. Hence the sick feeling in my stomach every time I read the hateful rantings of Robert K. and some others here. Hence my refusal to join in the lobbing of H bombs at brothers in Christ
Terry W. West said,

August 8, 2007 at 10:28 am

Lane,

Thank you for your reply in #36. I looked at Q&A 63, I don’t see anything in 63 that would support your definition of “special” as “exclusive”.

Here is 63:

Q63: What are the special privileges of the visible church?
A63: The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government;[1] of being protected and preserved in all ages, not withstanding the opposition of all enemies;[2] and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation,[3] and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved,[4] and excluding none that will come unto him.[5]

And also 62:

Q62: What is the visible church?
A62: The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion,[1] and of their children.[2]

Now, 62 says the visible church is all who profess the true religion and their children. 63 says this visible church enjoys the “communion of saints”. So in light of this how then is “communion” exclusive to the invisible church. It seems that the WLC is allowing for various senses of communion, i.e. a special (particular) communion enjoyed by the visible church and a special (particular) communion enjoyed by the invisible. So I don’t see how your argument can be sustained, because your saying WLC 65 excludes any sense of communion or union with Christ. But, 63 explicitly states a sense of communion enjoyed by the visible church. By your form of argument you seem to me to be committing a negative inference fallacy.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
greenbaggins said,

August 8, 2007 at 10:40 am

Eric, I don’t know exactly how to respond to this. You obviously do not wish to rush to conclusions on things. In this, you seem to be a lot like Tim Prussic. And that’s good. I don’t like rushing to conclusions either. I at least try to think things through first. I certainly have greater success some times than others.

Wilson is really an anomaly. People place him as the leader of the FV. He is certainly the most vocal. But there are so many differences between him and the other FV guys (in my mind), that he almost isn’t FV. That is why it is puzzling to me that some critics of the FV think of him as the ringleader. The problem here is that the critics get caught in a catch-22: if Wilson is the ringleader, then why isn’t the orthodoxy of the other FV guys okay? But if Wilson isn’t the ringleader, then how come he gets attacked like he is? This is my position on Wilson. I think he is mostly okay in what he affirms. I think he doesn’t always have the careful qualifications necessary to guard against certain misunderstandings. Teachers need to do that always. But he is not willing to deny what are certainly non-confessional statements in the other FV guys. He affirms enough to be orthodox, but he doesn’t always deny what he needs to deny. Orthodoxy consists of both sides, by the way. You have to affirm what is true, and deny what is false. The latter aspect is probably the only reason I would not allow him into my presbytery, for instance, if he were to apply for a church there (which of course will probably never happen). Wilson’s theology does not represent the other FV guys, in my opinion. The FV guys have problems now only in what they will not deny, but also in what they affirm. By the way, every heretic who has ever lived has *claimed* to be in accordance with the church’s teaching. So, for them to say so doesn’t exactly make it so. The theology also has to be consistent with the church’s teaching. I do not find the FV’s teaching to be in accord with the church’s teaching. Neither does the PCA, OPC, URC, RPCNA, RCUS, and probably a few others. Do these church rulings have any bearing on your opinion of the FV? This is a genuine question.
greenbaggins said,

August 8, 2007 at 10:45 am

Terry, the communion spoken of in question 63 is not communion with Christ. It is explicitly said to be the communion of *saints.* Contrast this with the communion *with Christ* spoken of in question 65. These are not the same things. One is communion with Christ, and the other is with the saints. These are distinct. So, you cannot argue that “communion” undefined is a benefit in common with believers and unbelievers. The whole visible church has the communion of saints. Only the invisible church has communion with Christ. I am looking at the word “special” and how it is used. In both questions, the point is that the body in question has these benefits. The benefits of the visible church do not apply to Buddhists. The benefits of the invisible church do not apply to all those in the visible church. I think you need to look up “special” in the Webster’s 1828 dictionary.
tim prussic said,

August 8, 2007 at 10:52 am

Pastor Lane,

Regarding the so-called covenantal (read, confusing) usage of ordo-salutis type terms, please examine Hebrews 10:29 (and 22). The apostate folk are covenantally sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Christ’s blood?) which they trampled underfoot and insulted the Spirit of Grace by which they were enlightened (regenerated?). These *common* graces, it would seem, were signified and sealed to them in their sprinkling (vs 22). Is that not covenantal enough that we can use ordo terminiology in a broad/covenantal way for all the visible church, but in a strict way for the elect without being accused of being intentionally misleading or dishonest?
pduggan said,

August 8, 2007 at 11:14 am

Saints only have communion with each other because they are united by the Spirit in Christ. The visible church has communion with all its members because of their common union in the Spirit.

And w.r.t. #29, I respond to reformedmusings blog entry here

http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2tmhh/archive/2007_08_01_arc.html#7770577880473336873
David Gadbois said,

August 8, 2007 at 11:25 am

I think I agree with Lane. Wilson is not the ring-leader of the FV. He is, however, their enabler.

And, yes, he is vocal. He’s FV’s PR guy, and it is his job to make FV look orthodox. So he’s the guy on stage putting on that charming, delightful song and dance routine, meanwhile his more seamly pals are doing the real business behind the stage.
greenbaggins said,

August 8, 2007 at 11:32 am

Paul, so unbelievers enjoy union with Christ? That is non-confessional. People can have communion one with another without having the common union of the Spirit. Even outside the church, people can enjoy “communion” with one another. The one does not by *any* means force the other. You are arguing for a non-differentiated view of union with Christ. It won’t work.
tim prussic said,

August 8, 2007 at 11:41 am

David, wonderfully sinister…
Reading you on behind the scenes FV stuff is like watching a Scooby Doo episode after eating some specially-made brownies, ya know, Scooby Snacks!
pduggan said,

August 8, 2007 at 11:42 am

Jim Cassidy says the visible church is the body of Christ. Is he right?

Can you be in the body of Christ (in some sens) and have no union with the head of the body?

I’ll grant it s a qualitatively different union.

Did God marry Israel (ezek 16)? Did he divorce her for taking the things he gave her through marriage and giving them to other men?

Did Israel in the wilderness drink of the same spiritual drink (Christ?) Did they die anyway?
pduggan said,

August 8, 2007 at 11:44 am

Isn’t the union two elect church members have a union effected by the Spirit?

I’d think it would be unconfessional and unbiblical to answer no.
pduggan said,

August 8, 2007 at 11:47 am

Actually, I’m trying to argue a highly differentiated view of union with Christ, while maintaining that the term “union” is appropriate in all cases.

If you want to deny any union with Christ to the non-elect church member, you don’t have to do any differentiation at all.
David Douglas said,

August 8, 2007 at 11:50 am

Doug Wilson has responded to Lane’s response here:

http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=4276

It seems pretty straight-forward to me (full dislosure; I attend Leithart’s church). With repsect: my observation of Lane’s style in reviewing RINE and other writings has often (not always) been to question a passage by wondering if Doug meant it in the worst way (if there were a choice of interpretations). This is followed by a challenge Doug to explain it. In the meantime some of the country folk in the back of the theatre are looking for past due fruit to add to the discussion.

A most frustrating (to me) example was publicly musing about Wilson’s whereabouts when he didn’t respond for a while.

My point, and, as they say, I do have one, is this: Wouldn’t it make more sense and be more charitable to at least clairfiy some of these things by private email For example:

“Dear Doug, are you still interested in responding to my blog comment?”

or “Not sure what “not trumping the covenent means in this context, could you
elaborate?”

Then your blog comment can be:
“In a recent email exchange Doug let me know he was behind on some things and would get back to this discussion very soon”

“I asked doug about what “not trumping the covenant” meant and he said
http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=4276

Like the local list-serve in Moscow this blog’s interactions with Doug remind one of Jem and Scout being reluctant to knock on the door of the Radley home.

I’m not an elder though I have a few years under my belt in the reformed community. If I have overstepped my place to you Lane as a minister of the Gospel (for which you have my thanks), please accept my apologies and delete/modify this as you see fit.
Eric F. Langborgh said,

August 8, 2007 at 11:50 am

Rev. Keister,

Thank you for your gracious reply. I think you are reading me correctly. I wish others were as careful and charitable as you, even if I think (sometimes) you misunderstand things, as I certainly do, too. I don’t think you ever intentionally misrepresent anything, which is why I so appreciate your blog. (I wonder, for instance, how many critics would at least agree with what you wrote about Wilson here in #43?)

I think there are two things here that I think you would agree are not the same: being heretical, and being not in close enough accord with a particular church’s doctrinal statements. IOW, one can be orthodox but out of accord with the WS, for instance, at some or another point. Do you agree? B/c it seems that too many take the two issues as synonymous.

Also, I know you have said that you have defined what you think of as heresy, but I am relatively new to this blog (only been reading it for the past four months or so, and then sometimes can’t get back to it for days at a time, thus missing much of what you write). Would you please point me to where you have done so, or restate it here? I think that would be helpful to me.

Finally, in response to your question (”Do these church rulings have any bearing on your opinion of the FV?”). My answer is this: currently little/potentially much. Let me explain, as I have to my ruling elder at my church, Bob Mattes: I have watched for a long time as FV critics have consistently gotten Doug Wilson wrong, despite correction, have consistently conflated the NPP with FV, etc. Now, if these people, some of whom have been on these study groups who wrote the reports, can get Wilson so wrong, and can get the NPP/FV disconnect wrong, I have little confidence that they are getting the other guys right, even though I am admittedly less familiar with their teachings.

Now, I agree with you that one can claim to be orthodox but have teachings that are decidedly not so. But after Wilson I have read, in descending order of familiarity: Leithart, Jordan, and Horne, with occasional articles by Lusk, Wilkins, etc. In most these cases, I have read what I take to be their clear affirmations of sola fide, in the traditional and accepted Reformed sense. I also appreciate their stress on the objectivity of the covenant, and I think there is good pastoral value at least for what they are trying to do, as per the response to you that Doug Wilson just posted at his blog today. I just don’t see a problem with that, as I don’t see it compromising sola fide. The WS is great. The 3FU is wonderful. But they aren’t the sum and complete substance of God’s teaching. I believe, therefore, that it is possible to hold additional views to the positions in the confessions that are not necessarily in conflict with the confessions. At the same time, I concede that one can be out of accord but still fundamentally orthodox, or out of accord and a heretic to boot. There are three possibilities there.

So, I have read some of these reports you mention, esp. the PCA report, and for the most part I either agree with aspects of the report and think “so where’s the disagreement here?” or I feel they are talking right past each other. I am dumbstruck, frankly, how the study committee refused to meet or talk with the leading FVers during their study, for instance. I talking with Bob about this directly, and his explanation just does not satisfy me. That makes me even more skeptical.

Anyway, all that is to say that my familiarity with some of the FV is not comprehensive, so I recognize that these reports may be right-on in the whole. But I have much reason to be distrustful of them, based on what I have observed all too often throughout this whole debate. But I am humble enough to listen, which is why I am here.

Thank you.
Terry W. West said,

August 8, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Lane,

Thank you for your reply. You said:“Terry, the communion spoken of in question 63 is not communion with Christ. It is explicitly said to be the communion of *saints.* Contrast this with the communion *with Christ* spoken of in question 65.”

I thought that this would be your counter. I started to speak to it in my last reply, but decided I would wait to see if it was. So, you would argue that to be in the “communion of saints” is in no sense (even indirectly?) implying any kind of communion with Christ? I don’t see how this is possible. How do we even understand the designation “communion of SAINTS” without any sense of this also being related to communion with Christ? Now, it is certain that not every member of the visible church has the “special” communion with Christ as the invisible, hence Q&A 65, but it would still seem to me that you are improperly defining how we understand the term special.

Let look at this sentence in your reply: “The benefits of the visible church do not apply to Buddhists.” Now, I would agree that no Buddhist is a member of the visible church. But, could we exclude any sense whatsoever of “communion with Christ from the Buddhist? Look at what Vermigli says about a certain “sense” of “communion” with Christ that we all share by being a member of the human race. He calls this sense of communion/union, “incarnational”.

Vermigli:
12. Through the incarnation of the Son of God we communicate with him in flesh and blood, inasmuch as we believe that through it he assumed our nature. On the other hand, when we communicate and embrace through faith its body and blood given to death for us, we become partakers of them spiritually.
Peter Martyr “Epitome of the Book Against Gardiner, 1561,” in The Life, Early Letters & Eucharistic Writings of Peter Martyr, ed., by J.C. McLelland and G.E. Duffield (Sutton Courtney Press, 1989), p., 294.

They have mentioned two unions with Christ: one by faith when we apprehend his body nailed to the cross and his blood shed for our salvation. The other is the fact that the Son of God himself took our true nature and so there is a natural communion between us and Christ, of which mention is made in Hebrews 2. But there is a third kind of union, on which we enter with Christ by eating him spiritually.
Peter Martyr “The Oxford Disputation and Treatise, 1549,” in The Life, Early Letters & Eucharistic Writings of Peter Martyr, ed., by J.C. McLelland and G.E. Duffield (Sutton Courtney Press, 1989), pp.,

Here, then, we have two communions with Christ (duas communiones cum Christo), the one natural, which we draw from our parents at birth, while the other comes to us by the Spirit of Christ. At the very time of regeneration we are by him made new according to the image of his glory.
Peter Martyr, “Calvin, Strasbourg 8 March 1555,” in The Life, Early Letters & Eucharistic Writings of Peter Martyr, ed., by J.C. McLelland and G.E. Duffield (Sutton Courtney Press, 1989), pp., 345-347.

Now my remaining task is to answer your questions about our communion with Christ. I pass over the judgment on that subject by John a’ Lasco, a gentleman equally renowned in letters and endowed with godliness. I will only make clear in a few words what I believe about this mystery. I strive for brevity, especially since your learning and acumen are such that you understand from a few words what I am after. The conjunction of the same nature that we share with Christ from his incarnation is not nothing, seeing that it is mentioned in the second chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, where it is written, “Since therefore the children share in the flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature,” (Heb 2:14). But this is not restricted to Christians, for Jews, Turks, and everyone included in a census of human beings are joined with Christ in this way.
Peter Martyr Vermigli, “Letter No. 114: To Beza at Lausanne,” in Life, Letters and Sermons, trans., by John Patrick Donnelly, (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 1999), vol 5, p., 135.

I think we can certainly agree that at the very least the above quotes from Vermigli are indeed interesting. That being said, why could we speak of at least 3 senses of communion/union? They would look like this:

1. Natural communion/union shared between Christ and every memeber of the human race, Christ taking that nature in His incarnation.

2. Covenantal or ecclesiastical communion/union with Christ by profession of the true religion and administration of the covenantal sign of baptism.

3. Regenerational communion/union of the elect alone.

I see nothing in the WLC that excludes the above distinctions. The first sence of communion/union would be simply “common”, nothing “special” because it can be said of each and every member of the human race. The second would be “special” (you could insert any/all of the definitions I cited from Dictionary.com here) in comparison to the first, because it is shared by Christ and the visible church members. The third would be “special” (again, you could insert any/all of the definitions I cited from Dictionary.com here) in comparison to the 1&2, because it is shared by Christ and all the regenerate members of the invisible church.

Just food for thought.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
Terry W. West said,

August 8, 2007 at 12:10 pm

To all reading my comments,

You guys will have excuse my inability to catch all my typos…lol. I get in to much of a hurry sometimes.
tim prussic said,

August 8, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Good post, Terry.

Ideas/notions in addition to the confession ought not be thought to be in opposition to the confession.
tim prussic said,

August 8, 2007 at 12:39 pm

By way of clarification, ideas/notions in addition to the confession certainly can be in opposition to the confession, but are not so necessarily.
I honestly think it is a truncated Christianity that is limited to any human confession. On the other hand, I think we ought to have the confession clearly in mind when reading the Scripture as a faithful guide and helper as we read God’s Word. God’s given his church teachers and the Westminster divines still function as such, along with a host of others.
Robert K. said,

August 8, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Eric, currently you are the dream follower of the FVists. Just entertain the possibility that you’ve yet to develop enough understanding of Reformed doctrine and discernment for how false teachers attempt to undermine it to come to any worthwhile conclusions.

Doug Wilson is a pomo academic who plays the conservative, good ‘ol boy routine (learned from the his theonomy days, they all did the same, in fact you’d think reading them that they all hung out in fallout bunkers in Montana with their guns and pick-up trucks). In the political realm Wilson correlates to what is called a RINO. Rupublican in name only. Taking the partisan politics out of that example (though Wilson knows playing the conservative gets him an audience as well) he is the guy who presents a public face as one thing to get an audience then when it gets down to crucial votes he’s John Kerry’s and Teddy Kennedy’s best friend. In Wilson’s case, he’ll write volumes on Reformed theology from different angles (family, education, debating atheists, etc.) but when it comes down to the crucial elements such as justification by faith alone he equivocates. Yeah, he’s Reformed…except for sola fide. He’ll present his ‘problems’ he has with the Reformed ‘formula’ very carefully, and he’ll even say flat out that he agrees with it, knowing that he’s already redefined the terms or given himself enough leeway with the definition of the terms that saying he agrees with it can mean he agrees with the practice of circuses bathing elephants in lemonade.

And if you don’t know what it means to not accept justification by faith alone it’s the difference between being in the Kingdom of God and in the Kingdom of Satan. Basically. Internally you’re still in rebellion to God if you can’t accept justification by faith alone with no ifs ands or buts… You still think your own works can save you. You’ve yet to die to the law and come alive in Christ. Yes, it’s a regeneration issue.

People can come to the faith via the theonomists and now Federal Visionaries but they often (I’ll be charitable) are a bit ‘off’. You simply have to throw it off. If as an influence some of Wilson’s writings effected you positively then fine, but some of Nietzsche effected me positively, but I see his shortcomings and I don’t go to him for biblical doctrine.

Stay to the old paths.
tim prussic said,

August 8, 2007 at 2:08 pm

bobby k., your insight into doctrinal issues is staggaring.
your insight into the deep recesses of people’s hearts is even more so. It’s funny, I read in the Bible that only the Spirit of God can do what you claim to do all the time. Were I to attempt logical analysis, it might look a-little sumthin’ like this:

Only the Spirit of God know the the hearts of men.
bobby k. claims to know the hearts of men.
Ergo, bobby k. claims to be the Spirit of God.

Further:

The man of lawlessness displays himself as God.
bobby k. implicitely displays himself as God.
Ergo, bobby k. is the man of lawlessness.

How ’bout them apples?
reformedmusings said,

August 8, 2007 at 2:15 pm

pduggan,

RE #46:

Thanks for pointing out your post. I won’t be able to do so until next week, but I will try to address the thoughful issues you raise.
reformedmusings said,

August 8, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Terry,

RE: #45

I think that a firm definition of communion would be helpful here. I don’t believe that it means sitting in the same pew. The active definition in the Standards would be something like “intimate fellowship or rapport” from Webster’s. Surely the judge of the universe who called the Pharisees (who were active members of the Mosaic Covenant and tithed their mint and cumin) children of the devil does not maintain intimate fellowship with the reprobate. I believe Lane and others are exactly right on the clear meaning of the Larger Catechism. Just redefining the underlying terms doesn’t make it so.
greenbaggins said,

August 8, 2007 at 2:31 pm

The union that the elect have with Christ is internal, unlosable, and vital. The connection that the non-elect have with the saints is external, losable and non-vital. Sure, there is a solidarity of Christ with all humanity, as Vermigli said. But that is really irrelevant to the question of what kind of union the non-elect could have with Christ. I deny utterly that the non-elect can have any kind of vital, internal union with Christ. By vital here, of course, I mean “having new life, being born again.”
pduggan said,

August 8, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Is there “vital” live in the visible church?
jared said,

August 8, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Lane,

FVists “deny utterly that the non-elect can have any kind of vital, internal union with Christ” too. The non-elect can be in Christ but not of Christ. This is the difference between covenantal and decretal; what’s so complicated or wrong about this? How does such a formulation set up covenant against decree?
Terry W. West said,

August 8, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Lane,

Thank you for your reply. The main point that I am attempting to make is that it is legitimate to speak of various senses of communion/union. As long as one affirms and is careful to maintain the “special” sense of union/communion with Christ that is defined in WLC 65, then the other sense of union/communion, as long as they are properly defined, are not excluded by the WLC. To argue that they are, is to infer a negative from a bare positive, which does not follow, and is always a fallacious way of arguing.

Also, I find it interesting that you are you would argue that the phrase “communion of saints” in WLC 63 has no implication for any sense of communion with Christ. I see the only way you can support this is to commit the same negative inference fallacy.

It seems to me, Lane, and I mean no offense by this, that in your zeal to refute the FV you are stripping the confessional language of all but the most narrow senses possible of your own asserted definitions, and then when you try to defend these very narrow definitions you do so by some very bad reasoning, e.g. negative inference fallacy. Again, I don’t mean this a slam against you. I am just trying to give you my honest opinion after several months of reading the debate here on your blog.

Anyway, I do enjoy the debate though brother, and I thank you for giving people a place to hopefully work through these issues, even in light of some of the more hostile participants.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
Terry W. West said,

August 8, 2007 at 3:37 pm

For anyone reading,

I want to illustrate what i mean by negative inference fallacy with a cute little syllogism.

Premise 1. Squirrels (the Elect) have long very furry (special) tails (communion/union).
Premise 2. Dogs (the non-elect) are not squirrels (the elect)
Conclusion. Dogs(the non-elect) do not have tails(communion/union) in any sense.

Now, I am going to attempt to defend this argument. You see, the tail that the squirrel has is THE tail by which we define what it is to be a tail. So, a dog, even though he has something that is similar to what a tail should be, really has no tail at all in any sense, because even though the appendage that is attach to the dogs rump, (despite the fact that this is also an attribute of a Squirrels tail) it cannot be a tail because it is by the squirrel that a tail is defined strictly speaking.

Now, I will be absolutely astounded if everyone reading this comment is not persuaded by my unassailable argument.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
tim prussic said,

August 8, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Jared, I think it’s pretty clear that if folks don’t get what you’ve written in post 65, it’s that they’re merely unwilling to get it. Careful thought is all about making and keeping distinctions. The covenantal/decretal distinction is, honestly, pretty easy to see in Scripture and REALLY easy to identify. It can get sticky as one presses into it, but all doctrines are that way.

It’s infelicitous how much time is spend wrangling about things that ought really to be clear. I could expect a person inexperienced in theological discourse to miss clear distictions, but it’s quite inexcusable for the majority of the people who write on this blog.

Pastor Lane, the communion of the saints IS inseparably linked with union in Christ. We, though many, are one bread because we partake of the one Bread. The fellowship of the body is tied in with fellowship with the Head. We are bone on his bone and flesh of his flesh, thus we’re united to each other. I don’t see how they can be divided.
Top Posts « WordPress.com said,

August 8, 2007 at 7:02 pm

[...] Decrees and Covenant The next paragraph of the FV document has to do with the intersection of the decree and the covenant. I must confess […] [...]
Robert K. said,

August 8, 2007 at 7:21 pm

>”bobby k., your insight into doctrinal issues is staggaring.”

I don’t find apostolic biblical doctrine to require the kind or degree of intellect - self-assessed, imagined, philosophical, theoretical, practical, serious, inane or otherwise - that is needed to impress those wedded to the world.

And…staggering is spelled with an e.
tim prussic said,

August 8, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Staggering.. thanks, bud. That’s the first bit of edification I’ve got from ya. And don’t think I don’t appreciate it.

However, as usual, you’ve evaded my point like a champ. I’ll state it directly in the form of a short series of questions: Where’d ya get the power to peer into folks’ hearts and discern their REAL spiritual state? Where can the rest of us get such spiritual goggles? How is it that your spiritual goggles ALWAYS seem to twist your brothers’ statements around so that they end up liars? For example, I say I believe the classic doctrine of sola fide, you say I’m a lair and I’m going to hell unless I’m converted.

An honest question: In your zeal for Christ, do you think you might be a bit bullyish and obtuse?
Robert K. said,

August 8, 2007 at 7:59 pm

I don’t recall ever reading a statement by you regarding justification.

Regarding Wilson, it’s his redefinition with terms. Hedge, shuffle, weasel, waffle, prevaricate. “Oh, yes, I tell you boldly I believe in justification by faith alone.”

(If faith means faithfulness….and if we agree that faith is not faith without works, so, yes, justification by faithfulness alone with the necessary amount of works that will define faith as true faith. “Meanwhile, come into my church where I have the power to regenerate you with this ritual here, and to forgive you of your sins, just sit down and shut up, and don’t allow those TR’s to confuse your minds. Oh, and if you really get tired of us there’s a Church over there that will take you and that we will gladly let you join…Benedict? put down your eye makeup, we have another convert for you…”
Robert K. said,

August 8, 2007 at 9:03 pm

>”An honest question: In your zeal for Christ, do you think you might be a bit bullyish and obtuse?”

Interesting that you would assign “zeal for Christ” as a cause for being obtuse. I’m a fool for the Gospel, anyway.

I come across the way I do in this case for one reason: FVists are pretending to be something they are not. If they were merely like Arminians of whatever stripe, or JWs or Mormons or etc. then the defense would take a different tone. Those groups don’t claim to be in doctrinal compliance with classical Reformation confessions of faith.

And anyway, FVists, like other heretics such as Arian heretics like the muslims, engage in mocking and chain-yanking of Calvinist/Reformed Christians. You don’t think the mocking and chain-yanking might have something to do with the tone you get in return? To a perhaps lesser degree Roman Catholic apologists do the same thing. They mock Bible-believing Christians. Then they complain of the tone of Protestants who attempt to disabuse them of their unbiblical doctrines and call us anti-Catholic or whatever.

But it’s really the fact that FVists pretend to be something they are not that increases the tension in the room. RC apologists don’t claim to be Calvinists. At least they havn’t started that tactic to date that I know of.
Robert K. said,

August 8, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Here’s a good analogy for you FVists: in war if you are caught wearing the uniform of your enemy you are shot on sight. Certainly you are not granted the rights of regular POWs. Same with spies, same with traitors. We deal differently with those who oppose us by pretending to be one of us as they work against us. Wear your uniform and oppose us on the field of battle. We can’t respect you until you do this. Right now you are not going to be granted Geneva Convention rights. You don’t deserve them.
tim prussic said,

August 9, 2007 at 12:03 am

bobby k., it’s not zeal for Christ that causes you to be obtuse, but “your zeal” for Christ. We can all be fools for Christ with varying levels of adulation.

It’s funny, bobby k., you sling so much poo around here you can’t even remember your targets! I set down what I believe regarding justification a number of weeks ago and you dismissed my words because you assumed I was simply lying, as you think I’m “FV”… but that’s not too important. The important thing is that you think you’re right and that you sling as much poo as you’re able because that’s what “fools for Christ” do, right?
Alexei Rayu said,

August 9, 2007 at 1:24 am

-> Robert K.: Back to WW2. What Stalin did in my country, is he killed many innocent by fourging the cases. People were judged as spies of America for reasons like knowing English or voicing even slight disagreement with the party. Probably that is why it hurts me to see a Christian call other Christians in a way of wishing them “shot on sight”. You have just judged all FVs as heretics, obviousle in violation of Mt 5:21ff, where Jesus strictly warns for vain accusations of this sort as being deserving of trial by the High Council. But then why bother with the words of Jesus if we can bicker over the meanings of theological terms?
Alexei Rayu said,

August 9, 2007 at 1:46 am

Sometimes we don’t understand our opponent, because doing it would mean recognizing the whole quarrel a mistake. And so we try to presume the worst about all that our opponent says.

When I read that FV statement, I see the above discussed point (of common operations) as a theological paraphrase of Heb 6:4-6, which in fact does state, that the persons “were made partakers of the Holy Ghost”, and more.

So, i would say, the ORDO is a precious doctrine that comes from the Reformers, but whenever you misapply it as to overthrow the Scriptures, it is counter-reformed. An unbeliever can get caught in a Church, especially the way of Christian clubs that we have it now, and enjoy the good fellowship, read the Bible, receive the instruction, pray, “feel God”, receive the communion - that all does happen, and it is the work of the common grace, galvanized by the Christian fellowship.

So I really see no basis for your saying here the FVs have been placing unbelievers into the ORDO.I believe you have been presumptious.
greenbaggins said,

August 9, 2007 at 9:17 am

Alexei, when Wilkins says that non-elect people can be justified, is that not ascribing ordo salutis benefits to non-believers?
Sean Gerety said,

August 9, 2007 at 9:42 am

Wilson is really an anomaly. People place him as the leader of the FV. He is certainly the most vocal. But there are so many differences between him and the other FV guys (in my mind), that he almost isn’t FV. That is why it is puzzling to me that some critics of the FV think of him as the ringleader.

Not exactly sure where this question popped up and I have been following things at least here pretty closely, but if Lane were to have his wish and all FV men, teachers and followers, in the PCA were to leave tomorrow where do you think they will go? Being nominal Presbyterians will they hang a shingle and become independents, or will they seek to continue the facade that they’re really Reformed Presbyterians even if only as a matter of form over substance?

The answer is clearly the latter and to continue to foster that perception that these men are really Reformed and Presbyterian they will join a denomination that at least has the outward appearance of being Presbyterian. That’s the CREC. That’s why Wilson is in a unique position, even aside being a very able and vocal defender of FV soteriology. Wilson would be a great salesman no matter what he was selling, just too bad it’s not Christianity. But attempting to claim he’s really “orthodox” while he and his own denomination can find nothing wrong with any of the other “leaders” of the FV — certainly nothing that would disqualify any FV man for membership — says a whole lot more than Wilson’s clever parsing of his replies so that they too appear sound.
Robert K. said,

August 9, 2007 at 6:57 pm

Alexei, a) you first mentioned the capital punishment thing; mine was a metaphor on what the FVist are, dishonest combatants; b) I don’t compare apostolic biblical doctrine and communions that hold to it as a tyranny. It’s really a fortress under constant siege by the forces of darkness.

If you are a follower of the FVists just at least recognize many who likely have more discernment for and understanding of Reformed doctrine and who have been facing these common attacks on biblical doctrine for a long time do not give the FVists their seal of approval. If that’s all you can go on just at least keep it in the back of your mind. FVists are particularly insidious as well in their shamelessness in infiltrating communions that hold to the truth (the few left that do) and defiling them from inside.
Sean Mahaffey said,

August 10, 2007 at 12:59 am

Pastor Keister,

Do you believe that non-elect people can be sanctified? (e.g. I Cor. 7:14, Heb. 10:29).

If so, isn’t that ascribing ordo salutis benefits to non-believers?

If you say that NECM are sanctified in a different way than ECM, then how is that different than what the FV is saying?

Do you think that justified means the same thing in all the passages of the New Testament? (e.g. Matt. 11:19; 12:37; Luke 7:29; 18:14; Rom. 2:13; 3:28; I Tim. 3:16; James 2:21-25).

Is there no sense in which we say that NECM are elect, called, sancified, justified?

Blessings,
Mahaffey
Beth Ellen Nagle said,

August 10, 2007 at 9:33 am

Lane (and others), how are we to understand Saul and David? Saul is one whom I think some would say he had the common operations of the Spirit in the same sense David did but he was unfaithful. I see a real categorical difference between the two as Saul showed integrity early on but it was never said he was a man after God’s own heart. So, ISTM that they were both anointed or gifted for leadership, favored by God but this in itself is not an indication of regeneration. Anyways, just trying to understand the claims here concerning Saul. I could use some help understanding this better.
greenbaggins said,

August 10, 2007 at 9:48 am

Eric, I am going to respond now to your number 54. The first issue that I see is how I am defining “heresy.” I have consistently defined the way I am using the term in relation to the FV to be about whether one is in accord with the church standards or not. I have not used the term to define the FV out of Christendom, though many would. Since I cannot read people’s hearts, I am willing to hope that the FV guys are saved, although in certain cases it would be in spite of their theology and not because of it. Be that as it may, that is how I am using the term. I believe the FV to be out of accord with the WS.

The second issue addressed in your post that I am responding to is the issue of the Confessional teaching in relation to the Bible. Of course the Standards do not say everything that the Bible does. But my concern is with the approach of the FV, which seems to be to want to read the Standards in the light of the “cracks,” rather than reading the “cracks” in the light of the Standards. We who take oaths to uphold the teaching of the Confession are not really upholding the teaching of the Confession if we are constantly trying to read the cracks instead of what’s there. The Confession deals with all the major doctrines, and certainly everything that deals with salvation. I see the entire FV as a project built upon the cracks, rather than upon the Standards. I do not think that is healthy. No doubt they would say in return that they are just trying to be biblical. But that response would set the Bible against the Standards by saying that we don’t need to stand upon the Standards as a subordinate standard, but only upon the Bible.

The third issue addressed is the lack of personal interaction with FV guys on the part of the committee. There is one gigantic problem with personal interaction: it is much more easily twisted than written words. “I said this,” “No, you didn’t.” Ultimately, such interaction would have to be reduced to writing anyway. That has already happened in the Knox Colloquium. In dealing with scholarly positions, this is the normal way of things: you deal with the written materials. It almost never happens that scholars actually talk in person with the person whose position they are critiqueing. The way of the scholarly world has always been that the written documents are primary. This is the way it has been for centuries. This is not to say that written documents cannot be misunderstood, of course. But all this talk about how the study committees have automatically misunderstood the FV *because* they have not talked in person with them is off the mark, in my view. If the FV cannot get clear their teachings in the written documents, then they are not apt to teach, and thus fail for the qualifications for ministry. Teachers must be clear. It is a sine qua non.
greenbaggins said,

August 10, 2007 at 9:54 am

Sean, there is no sense in which we can say that the non-elect are elected, justified, sanctified, etc. The word being present has no bearing necessarily on whether the concept is there. The word “sanctify” means “set apart.” To import the full meaning of the doctrine of sanctification into that word is illegitimate. That is why Heb 10 does not state that non-elect are sanctified. To say that it must mean that is a wooden hermeneutic. The word “justify” has more than one meaning as well. And the same thing applies to this word as applies to “sanctify.” The FV is not merely claiming that the words can be used in a broader sense. They are claiming that just a smidgin of the ordo idea applies to the non-elect. It doesn’t. The word-concept fallacy rears its ugly head again.

Beth, I think you have a fair assessment of the difference between Saul and David. Saul was never internally regenerated. David was. That becomes more and more clear as you go through the story.
greenbaggins said,

August 10, 2007 at 10:06 am

Jared, you need to read _Federal Vision_, pp. 58ff. where Wilkins applies real, vital union to the non-elect, and ascribes all sorts of ordo benefits to the non-elect.

Terry, you have not yet gotten to the

Green Baggins

Decrees and Covenant

95 Comments

Eric F. Langborgh said,

pduggan said,

jared said,

Fred Greco said,

pduggan said,

pduggan said,

jared said,

Robert K. said,

Davey Henreckson said,

Anne Ivy said,

Robert K. said,

Davey Henreckson said,

Dean Bekkering said,

Dean Bekkering said,

tim prussic said,

tim prussic said,

Robert K. said,

tim prussic said,

tim prussic said,

Robert K. said,

Robert K. said,

tim prussic said,

tim prussic said,

pduggie said,

jared said,

Robert K. said,

pduggie said,

Robert K. said,

reformedmusings said,

reformedmusings said,

Joint FV Statement - Divine Decrees « Reformed Musings said,

pduggie said,

greenbaggins said,

Terry W. West said,

pduggan said,

greenbaggins said,

pduggan said,

greenbaggins said,

Dean Bekkering said,

Vern Crisler said,

Eric F. Langborgh said,

Terry W. West said,

greenbaggins said,

greenbaggins said,

tim prussic said,

pduggan said,

David Gadbois said,

greenbaggins said,

tim prussic said,

pduggan said,

pduggan said,

pduggan said,

David Douglas said,

Eric F. Langborgh said,

Terry W. West said,

Terry W. West said,

tim prussic said,

tim prussic said,

Robert K. said,

tim prussic said,

reformedmusings said,

reformedmusings said,

greenbaggins said,

pduggan said,

jared said,

Terry W. West said,

Terry W. West said,

tim prussic said,

Top Posts « WordPress.com said,

Robert K. said,

tim prussic said,

Robert K. said,

Robert K. said,

Robert K. said,

tim prussic said,

Alexei Rayu said,

Alexei Rayu said,