Justification By Faith Alone?
August 16, 2007 at 9:32 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)
The next section is on justification by faith. Again, there is much to commend. However, this paragraph falls short of confessional orthodoxy, and in some places, rather badly.
The first paragraph is unobjectionable, as far as it goes. Everything in it is true. But it doesn’t go far enough. It does not say that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. Jeff Meyers once made a huge stink about the fact that his 30 reasons couldn’t be read as denying imputation, and that he believed in imputation. I said fine. But the question still remains: if imputation is the heart of justification, then why didn’t he mention it then? And why isn’t it present here? If Jeff Meyers is the expert on justification that he says he is (for he went to the most justification-thumping seminary in existence: Concordia), then he should know that everything depends on imputation, and that imputation must be defended at all costs. I don’t see him making an all-out effort to defend imputation. In the previous section on union with Christ and imputation, they also fall short of saying that Christ’s full righteousness is imputed to us. They say “credited.” But that doesn’t answer the question. Is it imputed or not? Are they using “credited” the same way as “imputed?” The only time they used “imputed” in that paragraph was to deny the importance of the IAOC. They want us to avoid reading them with a hermeneutic of suspicion. It is hard to resist such a hermeneutic with all the lack of clarity going on in FV statements.
The second paragraph is far more objectionable. And again, it is lack of clarity that is the issue here. FV guys really ought to know by now what the critics are saying, and how we view justification as being completely unrelated to our works in any way, shape or form. And yet, the FV insists on maintaining a constitutive understanding of works with regard to justification. Here is the problematic sentence:
Justifying faith encompasses the elements of assent, knowledge, and living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer. (emphasis added)
Just to be clear on what they mean, the previous sentence defines this living trust as “living, active, and personally loyal faith.” There is one thing that needs to be cleared up here: NO FV critic believes that we are justified by dead faith, not even Scott Clark. However, the FV is guilty of mixing up James and Paul here. The question here is whether jusifying faith justifies BECAUSE it is living, or whether the living-ness is an always concomitant accompaniment. It is a question of what the ground of our justification is. The Reformation has always said that faith justifies instrumentally because of Christ’s righteousness (the ground). Faith is the instrument, and Christ’s righteousness is the ground. The sentence quoted above in the FV statement is ambiguous. Charitably read, it is saying the same thing as James is saying. But we are not forced to read it that way. The words admit of another interpretation, which is that because faith is alive, we are justified, which is to say that because of our perseverance (read good works), we are justified. It is hard to imagine a worse way of putting James’s point than the above statement, since, if it is trying to rephrase James, it is using “justifying” in an ambiguous sense. Do they mean it in the declarative sense of Paul, or in the evidentiary sense of James? Or do they argue (as all non-Reformed folk do) that “justify” is used in the same sense in Paul and James? Unfortunately, we have to say that they are using “justifying” in the declarative sense of Paul, because of the first paragraph, which defines justification as the declarative act of God’s grace. So, they are using “justifying” in the way that Paul does, and yet they are including works in the definition. Or at least, it can easily be read that way. Not clear at all.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 16, 2007 at 9:53 am
The FV is the off-spring of Norman Shepherd. He was invited to be one of original key speakers at the infamous Auburn Ave. Conference. The FV is his legacy and nowhere is this more obvious than in this section on justification.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 16, 2007 at 10:25 am
I should add that two of men who signed this recent document ,Rich Lusk and Mark Horne, have openly appealed to Norman Shepherd to support their views, and Shepherd’s repudiation of the CoW and the imputation of the AOC have likewise found a receptive audience in the FV.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:29 am
I plead ignorance: “IAOC”? “AOC”?
Thanks in advance for filling out the shorthand for me.
Davey Henreckson said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:30 am
Pastor Keister,
If FV-opponents believe that justifying faith is necessarily a living faith, what is so wrong about saying that is includes an element of “living trust.” The language used here sounds very similar to what Paul used in Romans 4:
21 [Abraham was] fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”
Paul looks to be saying: Abraham’s faith was a justifying faith because he had a living trust in the promises of God. I don’t see how this can be construed as anything but a gospel of grace. If Paul says that living trust in God’s promises is grounds for justification, what’s wrong with the FV statement’s wording?
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:30 am
imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:42 am
Thank you, GLW.
greenbaggins said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:52 am
The problem is in making that “living trust” the reason or the ground for why we are justified, which is what the FV statement seems to do. Various elements fill out what justifying faith is. But they relate *differently.” The fact that faith is alive is a concomitant truth, not a grounding truth. It is not *because* faith is alive that it justifies. Rather, the faith that justifies is *also* (in addition to being justifying) alive. Faith justifies ***only*** because it lays hold of Christ and His righteousness.
Davey Henreckson said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:56 am
It just seems that Romans 4 does use this very language. Verse 21 says that Abraham had a living trust in the promises of God; verse 22 says “That is why” his faith justified him. Certainly living trust is concomitant; looking at Romans 4, why can’t it be constituent as well?
stewart said,
August 16, 2007 at 1:07 pm
“infamous Auburn Ave. Conference”
Infamous. Like the The infamous El Guapo.
greenbaggins said,
August 16, 2007 at 1:07 pm
The point of verse 21 is not the livingness of the faith, but is rather describing the content of Abraham’s faith. He believed in the promise. The promise shows us Jesus Christ, since He is the Seed of Abraham.
The problem with saying that living faith is constituent is this: the only definition of “living faith” that is biblical is one that includes within it works. A living faith works through love, as Paul would say. So, saying that *because* a faith is living that *therefore* it justifies is to make works a part of justification. This is not Reformed.
Mark T. said,
August 16, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Hence, Lane, “Reformed” is not enough.
Todd Pedlar said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:09 pm
The faith of Abraham could be said to be living because it could be demonstrated (a la James) by fruits of obedience. As Lane says here in comment 10, Abraham’s faith didn’t justify him “BECAUSE” it was fruitful, but it justified him because it was true. Works are ONLY evidentiary, because they are produced by the same Spirit that gave Abraham his faith. The works are NOT and should NEVER be conflated with the faith… this runs counter to Scripture’s witness on the matter.
Incidentally, Lane, I’m fairly certain that most FV proponents would argue that justification in Paul is exactly the same as justification in James (despite the huge contextual differences).
greenbaggins said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Right, Todd, I agree. Even Wilson is shaky on this point.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Lane said: “Faith justifies ***only*** because it lays hold of Christ and His righteousness.”
That is correct. We agree with that. We are not saying that faith is the ground of justification because it is alive. We don’t think that. We don’t say it. We don’t believe it. Allow me to nuance this a bit further. That’s not our point.
Now, faith lays hold of Christ. We believe that also. What we are saying is that dead things don’t lay hold of anything. Living things can, but dead things can’t. In order for faith to do what faith has to do (lay hold of Christ and his obedient righteousness), it has to be the kind of faith that only God can give. And that kind of faith is living faith.
Dead faith can’t move its fingers, and hence cannot “lay hold.” This is actually a very simple point.
greenbaggins said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Okay, this is helpful, DW. But are you sure that the other FV guys hold to this? Because Shepherd sure-fire did not.
reformedmusings said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I’m with Lane. Genesis 15:6 says of Abraham: “And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” (ESV) All Abraham did was believe God. It wasn’t until years later in Gen 22 that we see the ripe fruits of that faith when Abraham offered up Isaac as commanded by God. Works were not embedded in the faith that God gave Abraham in Gen 15:6, they came later as the fruit of his faith. As Todd said, the works were evidentiary.
greenbaggins said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Doug, let me ask you this: do you think that Paul is using the word “dikaioo” in the same sense as James?
Mark T. said,
August 16, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Allow me to nuance this: Lane should have emphasized “age and maturity” instead of “living trust” in his analysis, because the Federal Visioneers act like spoiled, immature little monsters who think that they know all things and wisdom will die with them. Of course, the incredible irony is that, notwithstanding their arrogant attitudes and their shameless behavior, they have the nerve to affirm coded words like “living trust,” which ultimately points to their reprehensible works. What a joke.
Dean Bekkering said,
August 16, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Doug
Would you see the need to add the adjective dead to corpse? It seem to me that a corpse is a corpse the same as faith is faith.
Would you agree with the following statement?:
“Justification means that ‘Christ himself is our righteousness’ and we are saved by grace alone, ‘in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part.’ Furthermore, ‘whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it.’ Along the same lines, ‘We confess together that good works…follow justification and are its fruits.’”
Rome also signed on to this position in the “Joint Declaration”.
When the adjective living faith is added it opens the door enough so Catholics and the Federal Vision can all live together in peaceful harmony provided all the others FV men would agree to the above quote.
Quote taken from CJPM pp 29.
Vern Crisler said,
August 16, 2007 at 6:03 pm
We are not justified by a dead faith.
We are not justified by a living faith, either.
We have a living faith because we are justified.
We are justified by a receiving faith.
Remember, God justifies the UNGODLY (not
AS ungodly, but WHILE ungodly.) Sola fide
means that faith is the means, not the analytic
ground. Accordingly Reformed is enough,
while FV is bloated soteriology.
Vern
Douglas Wilson said,
August 16, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Vern, does God justify the unregenerate? According to the ordo, God gives me a new heart, and as a consequence I repent and believe. As I result of believing, I am then justified. Regeneration is first.
This new heart, is it alive or dead? If dead, then how is it different from my old heart? If alive, then how did it happen that the repentance and faith that proceed from it fail to share in that life?
You point to a “receiving faith.” How can faith act as an agent in this way without being alive. A dead faith cannot receive. A living faith can receive. Of course faith is not the analytic ground, or any other kind of ground. But it is the act of believing rendered by a new creature, quickened by the Holy Spirit of God. Only a living faith can grasp the living Christ.
Robert K. said,
August 16, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Wilson, you don’t answer questions or further discussions (which would mean, for instance, actually outlining and admitting just *why* you say Reformed is not enough and just *why* you call yourself Federal Vision when everyday Reformed Christians have no problem calling ourselves Calvinist and Reformed). Like your comment immediately above you recite like a schoolboy “regeneration comes before faith” as if that is the subject and as if that is a revelation. In the very act of defending yourself pretending your novel doctrine doesn’t exist. You - are - a - troll. A self-published theological dilettante with a fetish for bad, Romanist doctrine and very common, age-old bad doctrine at that. You’ve only managed, as theonomists and now as so-called Federal Visionists, to corral the more ignorant and easily duped (and, unfortunately, the more innocent and easily drawn off the path of the straight and narrow) to yourselves. That is your big accomplishment. Along the way you merely appropriate influences that have nothing to do with your program and that you aren’t worthy of and certainly don’t value.
Mark T. said,
August 16, 2007 at 8:19 pm
In order to pigeon hole their heterodoxy, the FVers have created categories where none exist — “non-decretal election” and “living trust,” which is another way of saying that they have jettisoned biblical language to justify their unbelief.
Steven W said,
August 16, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Canons of Dort Point 1
Article 4: A Twofold Response to the Gospel
God’s anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel. But those who do accept it and embrace Jesus the Savior *with a true and living faith* are delivered through him from God’s anger and from destruction, and receive the gift of eternal life.
Westminster Confession of Faith XI
II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and *is no dead faith, but worketh by love.*
Steven W said,
August 16, 2007 at 8:23 pm
In 1979 Norman Shepherd writes:
“But if Paul says that the faith which avails for justification is faith working through love, does he mean that faith derives its power to justify from love so that it is after all love or works that justify and not faith? Not at all! This is the Roman Catholic interpretation of Gal. 5:6,which affirms precisely what Paul denies in the very same verse as well as in the Epistle as a whole. Faith alone justifies, that is Paul’s doctrine. Faith looks neither to itself nor to its own working for justification. Faith lays hold of Jesus Christ and his righteousness and the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to the one who believes. This is the distinctive function of faith in justification, which it shares with no other grace or virtue. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to the sinner the moment he believes. He believes and is justified. But Paul nevertheless specifically says in Gal. 5:6 that this faith which lays hold of Christ for justification is not alone, it is a faith that works through love. Hence Calvin says of Gal. 5:6, Indeed, we confess with Paul that no other faith justifies but faith working through love. *But it does not take its power to justify from that working of love.* Indeed, it justifies in no other way but in that it leads us into fellowship with the righteousness of Christ (Institutes III, 11, 20).”
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/norman-shepherd/the-grace-of-justification
Robert K. said,
August 16, 2007 at 8:53 pm
The Shepherd quote is similar to the Wilson quote (and Shepherd, though, I think even came off that game-playing sometime after 1979) in that it is one of their boilerplate “What’s the big problem here, hey…nothing happenin’ here…” implying there is no controversy or competing claims over meaning and so on. No differences. These are meant to be quoted by their followers.
Obviously this is a problem for FVists. As stated, Romanists like Sadoleto in Calvin’s day at least didn’t have the problem of having to pretend they weren’t Romanists.
Beast doctrine is Beast doctrine, and justification by faith *and* works (to any sliver of a degree) is Beast doctrine and is evidence of being still in bondage internally to the darkness and death of the Kingdom of Satan.
Only God can help them, but meanwhile it’s important to keep sound biblical doctrine pure so that it can be seen and recognized and owned by God’s elect.
Robert K. said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Keep in mind, historically what the Federal Vision represents has taken assurance away from its followers, joy in the faith away, and created a false piety in its followers (moralism). So all three of these things are talking points of Federal Visionists. Only they protest the opposite in spades. “We are solving the ‘problem’ of assurence” they say. “We drink beer, and laugh heartily ho ho ho!” And, “We are against introspective soul-searching regarding whether one is elect! We are against that!”
The only problem is their doctrine cultivates all those things they say their doctrine is a solution to.
This gets us to another: regeneration. FVists, Romanists, all man-centered, man-fearing works righteousness false teachings exist on a foundation of not only a lack of regeneration but a denial of it. (The proud unregenerate don’t want anything only God can give them. That puts them in a position of being subordinate to God.) So what do they do? “We are all about regeneration! I have a category on my blog on the subject of regeneration!” (Wilson has actually said this as a defense that he doesn’t know what regeneration is, in the midst of defending his baptismal regeneration, etc., etc.)
pduggie said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:05 pm
My favorite is how the sacraments are a Seal, which means that the sacraments can assure us of salvation. Since that’s what seals are for. No seal, no assurance.
Robert K. said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:19 pm
>”My favorite is how the sacraments are a Seal, which means that the sacraments can assure us of salvation. Since that’s what seals are for. No seal, no assurance.”
This could have been written by Scott Hahn. But I understand your situation. And one can’t prescribe how to get regenerated, but the Word of God is the wild card in the event. I would say fill yourself up with the Word of God, to the brim, engage it with zeal. This will force things. Storm heaven. You’ll either be regenerated by the Spirit or you will be hardened. Doctrine though that tells you to look to your baptism for assurance is sending you in the wrong direction.
pduggie said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Actually, It was James Montgomery Boice I got it from, speaking of seals in general:
“This seal indicates that the authority of the United States government stands behind the passport in affirming that the person … is a true citizen of the United States.
Sacraments operate in this way. In the case of Abraham … [he] had believed God and God had imparted righteousness to him, God gave the seal of circumcision to validate what had happened”
Sounds like assurance to me. What’s the point of validating something with a seal if the seal can’t assure you?
pduggie said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:46 pm
(Rotbert is so ignorant he forgets that sacraments are visible words, and as such, when I’m assured by them, its the Word assuring me. Sheesh)
Robert K. said,
August 17, 2007 at 12:11 am
pduggies, you need regeneration. You need the Spirit. With the Spirit you won’t be looking for ritual like a toddler looks for a binkie for assurance.
Robert K. said,
August 17, 2007 at 12:44 am
“HISTORICALLY both Lutherans and Reformed have had trouble maintaining the proper balance between law and gospel. Imbalance produces either antinomianism on the one hand or legalism and moralism on the other. . . In the first three centuries of Protestantism the number of antinomians was very small, yet among 17th century English Protestants there were very exaggerated fears of it. The much greater danger historically facing the Reformation balance of law and gospel has been moralism and legalism. Moralists or neonomians so stress Christian responsibility that obedience becomes more than the fruit or evidence of faith. Rather obedience comes to be seen as a constituent element of justifying faith.”
“In the Middle Ages there was a tendency to identify law with gospel. The gospel was at times called the new law. For many, keeping the law was an essential element in becoming reconciled to God.”
- New Dictionary of Theology
Don’t be a New Medievalist Fvist. Come out of that. When you fall into a teaching that a common dictionary of theology describes so matter of factly you can see you’re merely the newest in a long history of stumblers…
The New Stumblers. There’s a good name for the FVists…
pduggan said,
August 17, 2007 at 7:55 am
I look for Christ in all the places he has promised to be found.
His word and sacrament.
Grover Gunn said,
August 17, 2007 at 7:57 am
I like Turretin’s illustration about the eye as the lone instrumental means of sight for the body. The word “lone” in this context doesn’t meant that eye must be ripped out of the body and isolated in order for it to function as the lone instrumental means of sight. The functioning eye always remains in its organic connection with the rest of the body. Yet there is no other member in the body which sees, and that is the sense in which the eye is the long instrumental means of sight. The same is true of faith as the lone instrumental means of justification. Faith never exists torn from its organic relatioinship with its fruits, but the fruits are not instrumental means of justification.
The fruit comes from the Christ our faith unites us to, not from the faith itself. Faith is the branch’s abiding in the Vine in a vital, effective sense. From the perspective of divine sovereignty, faith is our experience of the mystial union with Christ effected and maintained by the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit. From the perspective of human responsibility, saving faith is our duty and something we do.
Every creature lives in terms of faith because of his creaturely limitations. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, and only God sees everything. In eternity, we will live by sight and not by faith, but that is a relative statement, not an absolute statement. We will see much in eternity that is invisible to us now, but we won’t then see everything. Even in eternity, we will be creatures with limited knowledge and thus beings of faith.
The distinguishing factor in saving faith is its object, which is Christ. Apart from any psychological effect, the effectiveness of faith is based on its object, not its subjective strength. A weak faith in a reliable object is effective, and a strong faith in an unreliable object is not.
May God bless!
Grover Gunn
pduggan said,
August 17, 2007 at 7:58 am
Was Boice wrong? Does baptism not “validate” or “authenticate” our salvation. I’m happy to listen to claims Boice was incorrect.
pduggan said,
August 17, 2007 at 8:11 am
Grover Gunn:
But is the livingness of faith a FRUIT of faith, or rather a defining quality Faith must always posses? Eyes see, but eyes see because they are enlivened by blood and stuff.
We’re dead before we have faith, and have to be regenerate logically to have faith.
“From the perspective of human responsibility, saving faith is our duty and something we do.”
So, that’s OUR perspective, right? The primary thing we would have to think about would be our “human” responsibilities, right? Something tells me that there are alot of anti FV types who *wouldn’t* be happy to say that.
Dave H said,
August 17, 2007 at 9:51 am
Robert
Certainly you don’t need to answer this question (and maybe it has been addressed before) but since you have a rather strong presence on this blog site, may I respectfully ask your background? E.g. denomination, any seminary training, church elder, over 25 years of age? Again, just curious.
Thanks
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:07 am
Doug Wilson
Here is a clear as a bell reason why I for one find your involvement in the FV so enigmatic on the surface. The definition of ‘a living faith’ ( which in and of itself is not problematic) flies into the teeth of statesments that I have highlighted here (and in direct correspondance to you), from Rich Lusk and Steve Wilkins, like this one from Wilkins,”The elect are those who are FAITHFUL in Christ Jesus.If they later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect-they are cut off from the Elect One and thus,lose their elect standing. But their falling away doesn’t negate the REALITY of their standing prior to their apostacsy. They were REALLY AND TRULY the elect of God because of their RELATIONSHIP with Christ”(my emphasis). Wilkins’ language implies that these people at one time DID have ‘justifying’ faith and was ‘living’. How else could they be ‘in Christ’? In this scheme a’living faith’ IS defined in terms of perservance or faithful obedience, hence it is the result of maintaining covenantal faithfulness. I sorry Doug, but your ’spin’ on this will not wash.Not only is this something that cannot be harmonized with the Reformed confessions like the WFC and the Three Forms of Unity, but it is but a Janus-faced form of Arminianism- despite the rhetoric used to justify it by appealing to ‘decretal’ as opposed to ‘covenantal’ election (which, you will remember, Cal Beisner pointed out in the foreword to Guy Waters’ book).
Mark T. said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:08 am
Dave H,
I’m curious why you would make such an inquiry and, as long as inquiring minds want to know, what are your credentials?
Thanks
Douglas Wilson said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:29 am
RobertK, the title of the book is “Reformed” is not enough. Reformed is plenty. But people who call themselves Reformed without knowing what it means are in another category. The scare quotes are needed.
Dave H said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:33 am
Mark T (#40)
As I wrote in #38, I’m curious simply because of Robert’s strong presence on this site (and, I suppose also because he writes with far more robust statements and accusations than other anti-FVers on this site).
As for me, I make no boast of my “credentials”, and I am typically an observer on this site; but since I asked Robert, and you in turn asked me, I’ll comply:
Simple church layman in the RPCNA; fifth generation Christian, though I first embraced Reformed theology in the late 1990s thanks to the ministries of Dr. Sproul, Pastor Wilson, Mike Horton; married and father of 5 baptized children; over the age of 35 (okay, okay, I’m 48); have subscribed to Credenda Agenda since early 1990s; Cubs fan.
Robert - if you care you respond, great; if not, forgive my intrusion).
Douglas Wilson said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:33 am
And Gary, you are taking “really and truly” as equivalent to “decretally.” But this debate is between those who say that there is such a thing as a genuine, temporary connection to Christ (covenantally) and a genuine, permanent connection to Christ (decretally), and those who say that the decretal connection is the only possible genuine connection. You are accustomed to limit words like really and truly to the decretally elect alone. But that is not what Lusk and Wilkins are doing. They are not saying that the non-elect covenant member has what the elect covenant member has. But they are saying that he has something, as opposed to nothing at all. There is room for debate on that subject, but not until all parties come to understand what the debate is over.
Mark T. said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:41 am
Gary,
Don’t let Wilson’s involvement in the FV vex you, as enigmatic on the surface as it may be. Robert nailed it when he identified Wilson as their designated front man responsible to smooth over their terrorist image by appearing on various blogs whenever someone points out a glaring problem. Sometimes he dazzles us with breathtaking statements, such as his recent denial that no one had flagged that “humiliating typo” from RINE; other times he staggers us with his outrageous accusations, such as his statement that his opponents refuse to debate him because they’d rather poison their fund-raising letters by saying that “faith alone” is under attack. They just want the money.
It is as you said, Wilson’s involvement cannot be explained by his surface statements; you must look deeper and not believe a word he says.
Mark T. said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:42 am
Thanks, Dave!
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:58 am
Brick Wall
“All in covenant are given ALL that is true of Christ. IF they persevere in faith to the end they enjoy these mercies eternally” (Steve Wilkins). So here we have people who at some point in their lives really DID have ’saving faith’ which DID actually ‘justify’ them and DID secure for them the forgiveness of sins otherwise they could not be ‘in Christ’ which is clearly what Wilkins is affirming, and yet this ’saving faith’ was not enough-but you jump in and say that I have misunderstood what Wilikins & co are saying, the ‘faith’ of the NECM never was ’saving faith’ at all ,else they would persevere- but then how DID these people ever come into the REAL possession of all that is true of Christ? As a Amber Ale as opposed to a Stout FV, I would think this would be one of those issue over which you would seperate yourself from your fellow FVers. Apparently not, and therefore I am forced to conclude that you are not the Amber Ale you claim to be.
Sean Gerety said,
August 17, 2007 at 11:13 am
The problem with saying that living faith is constituent is this: the only definition of “living faith” that is biblical is one that includes within it works. A living faith works through love, as Paul would say. So, saying that *because* a faith is living that *therefore* it justifies is to make works a part of justification. This is not Reformed.
Bingo. Not Reformed and not Christian.
Robert K. said,
August 17, 2007 at 11:34 am
DougW, “Reformed” is not enough is as much an equivocation as everything else you write. You don’t speak for Reformed doctrine. Thank God for Sproul and Packer and Berkhof and Vos and Calvin himself, and the Westminster divines and Ursinus and Olevianus, and the Dutch Calvinists, and the English and American Puritans. The Scots as well.
In your world, Doug W., when you say: “people who call themselves Reformed without knowing what it means are in another category.” you are saying Thomas Boston is not Reformed (stop and think about that). R. C. Sproul is not Reformed. J. I. Packer is not Reformed. Robert L. Reymond is not Reformed. All those mentioned in the paragraph above are not Reformed. Because they don’t conform to your “Wilkins and Lusk” FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. Doug, you have difficulty with discerning scale. This is a problem people have who also have what are called mental problems. You are like Dave Armstrong the Roman Catholic apologist who genuinely believes his collected blog posts are more historically important than the collected works of Luther and Calvin combined.
Dave H., I’m a Christian. I don’t mind your question, but if it’s a worldly resume you’re looking for…seminaries can produce fools, and the Holy Spirit has been known to make fools to fear God and get real wisdom. My approach to the FVists is as it is because they are pretending to be Reformed Christians put and simple. They are wearing the uniform of the army they are fighting. That is insidious and it calls for a different degree of confrontation than is usual with other groups with mere bad doctrine but honesty in their self-identification…
Sean Gerety said,
August 17, 2007 at 11:45 am
In this scheme a’living faith’ IS defined in terms of perservance or faithful obedience, hence it is the result of maintaining covenantal faithfulness. I sorry Doug, but your ’spin’ on this will not wash.Not only is this something that cannot be harmonized with the Reformed confessions like the WFC and the Three Forms of Unity, but it is but a Janus-faced form of Arminianism- despite the rhetoric used to justify it by appealing to ‘decretal’ as opposed to ‘covenantal’ election
Amen and spot on! Peel back the Christian sounding veneer with and there you have it. Nice work.
Steven W said,
August 17, 2007 at 11:50 am
Pastor Johnson,
I can suggest a way of understanding Wilkins’ statement that will make sense of what he’s getting at and avoid the charge that the non-elect covenant member had “saving faith.” Of course we’ll need to define saving faith as perhaps “persevering faith.” This is a distinct type of faith given by the Holy Spirit, but I suspect we’ll bump into all other sorts of categorical disagreements even from the start.
When Wilkins speaks the way he does, he is attempting to be Christo-centric. All of the so-called “ordo benefits” are things that are properly true of Jesus Christ, and we can only have them credited to us insofar as we are one with him. Wilkins is operating wuth a fundamentally different ontology, and I have not seen this adequately addressed so far in the debate.
“Faith” and “perseverance” are not exactly the same category of salvific benefits as forgiveness, justification, adoption, et al. Faith and perseverance are actually aspects of the individual’s response to the gospel proclamation, enabled of course by the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit. So the individual is called to believe and persevere, and when he does believe, the Holy Spirit unites him to Christ, thus granting all of the things true of Christ to the believer. This is what Wilkins is trying to get at. We are not to offer the benefits of Christ outside of offering the person of Christ. Sinclair Ferguson explains this rather helpfully in his discussion over the Marrow Controversy.
But I suspect that we’ll hit your brick-wall fairly quickly because historically John Owen (and a few others) have shifted our whole way of looking at things. Owen invoked a double-jeopardy argument that basically said that Jesus even forgives the elect’s failure to believe, thus drastically reducing the historical receptive role of faith. Perhaps it was due to the Arminians in his day, but Owen’s argument here really requires faith be a “work.” This argument was not received by most of the Reformed in Owen’s day, and it is clear in later writers such as Hodge and Dabney, that this was considered a confusion of categories. For them the gospel came with the condition of believing. I think that Owen’s understanding has gained the majority position now, and thus the gospel practically means “The elect are saved.” We have a hard time speaking of temporary benefits.
So if we can accept a Christocentric understanding of the gospel offer, as well as a communicatio idiomatum in regards to covenant membership, the substantial question should be over temporary faith. Is there such a thing, and can it receive temporary benefits? If so, how should we speak of it? I think that Wilkins’ main point is that when we speak objectively to all those in covenant (and thus we use something akin to the communicatio idiomatum) we are saying something that is true, however many other finer qualifications we add later.
I think we do this in other areas of systematics ( For instance, saying: “God died” or when Calvin, Vermigli, Ames, Olevianus, Burgess, et all spoke of baptismal regeneration), and so there ought to be room for discussion on this without immediately rejecting the statement.
Pastor Wilkins and Pastor Wilson do disagree over whether or not it is even appropriate to speak of “substance-ontology” benefits, ie. a benefit that is “yours” apart from the context of historical union and perseverance. I think they agree on the end result, but Wilson is still comfortable with a slightly more abstracted or end-of-time view, whereas Wilkins wishes to maintain a present orientation.
Dave H said,
August 17, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Robert
Thanks, though I was hoping for more (your only qualifier, and certainly an important one, was “Christian”). You didn’t mention your denomination, and I’m curious if they would welcome the young infant just baptised as a “Christian”, even though not regenerate.
Robert K. said,
August 17, 2007 at 12:09 pm
But Steven, Steven, Steven… In the approach of Wilkens, a predominant concept is the concept of metatextual language. Therefore, he uses the term ‘self-aware disingenous narrative’ to denote the bridge between union with Christ and perseverance. The act is interpolated into a abstract cognitive construct that includes dogmatic ’speaking church to revelation’ as a paradox. You havn’t taken this into account in your third or your fifth paragraph. These become eroded pillars of a collapsed ontology that was corrupt even prior to you stating: “Of course we’ll need to define saving faith as perhaps “persevering faith.”” I’ve tried to read yo charitably, and if I’ve gotten something wrong please correct me.
Robert K. said,
August 17, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Dave H, I guess I would answer that it doesn’t really matter what I would accept or what church I would belong to would accept. Reformed Theology is not about me, it’s about the five solas and doctrines of grace and the Covenant of Redemption as it works out in time (whether you bundle the CoR as one division of the CoG rather than giving it its own term, etc., etc. Classical Covenant - Federal - Theology. Which is apostolic biblical doctrine.
Sean Gerety said,
August 17, 2007 at 12:44 pm
They are not saying that the non-elect covenant member has what the elect covenant member has. But they are saying that he has something, as opposed to nothing at all. There is room for debate on that subject, but not until all parties come to understand what the debate is over.
No, there really isn’t Doug. God made no covenant with non-elect members of the visible church. Read your Confession. Further, not all members of the visible church are in a “real” or “living” union with Christ or whatever other adjectives you may want to include. To include reprobates, even reprobate baptized children of believers, as member of Christ’s body is exactly the kind of word play that has allowed FV men like you to bring in works through the back door. Your false gospel should be obvious to all since even perseverance has become a covenantal and eschatalogical outcome rather than a gift given to all those united to Christ the moment they first believe.
Vern Crisler said,
August 17, 2007 at 1:58 pm
#21
Hi Doug,
First, you are not taking into account the difference between God’s
decision to justify the believer, and the application of justification to
the believer. See,
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/akjust2.htm
Second, I did not deny means. One must be regenerate before one
can have faith. One must also be physically alive, too.
Third, as some have noted, the term “living faith” is too ambiguous
to clarify the nature of justifying faith. One is suspicious of adjectives
that might compromise the principles of grace. Better to use resting
a receiving.
Fourth, is it the FV position that God justifies the godly?
Cordially,
Vern
R. F. White said,
August 17, 2007 at 2:19 pm
DW asserts: “But this debate is between those who say that there is such a thing as a genuine, temporary connection to Christ (covenantally) and a genuine, permanent connection to Christ (decretally), and those who say that the decretal connection is the only possible genuine connection.”
I respect the fact that DW’s assertion may be blog shorthand and not all the DW would say. But, speaking as an FV critic, and only for myself, I do not see the debate as DW does. The debate from where I sit has been over whether a genuine covenantal connection to Christ differs from a genuine decretal connection to Christ and, if so, in what particulars.
Chris Hutchinson said,
August 17, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Well, and that the debate is now over in most NAPARC denominations and affiliated seminaries, and the FV side lost.
When I have lost a debate in various church courts, I did not keep arguing the point, but accepted the loss and moved on.
pduggan said,
August 17, 2007 at 3:24 pm
“The problem with saying that living faith is constituent is this: the only definition of “living faith” that is biblical is one that includes within it works”
I don’t believe that. I believe living faith is a faith produced by a regenerate heart. Full stop.
pduggan said,
August 17, 2007 at 3:29 pm
“Therefore, he uses the term ‘self-aware disingenous narrative’ to denote the bridge between union with Christ and perseverance. ”
He does? Where?
pduggan said,
August 17, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“But I suspect that we’ll hit your brick-wall fairly quickly because historically John Owen (and a few others) have shifted our whole way of looking at things. Owen invoked a double-jeopardy argument that basically said that Jesus even forgives the elect’s failure to believe, thus drastically reducing the historical receptive role of faith. Perhaps it was due to the Arminians in his day, but Owen’s argument here really requires faith be a “work.” This argument was not received by most of the Reformed in Owen’s day, and it is clear in later writers such as Hodge and Dabney, that this was considered a confusion of categories.”
That’s very interesting. Fits with how Lutheran’s see the receptive role of faith.
tim prussic said,
August 17, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Dave H., you’re just asking for disappointment by dealing with certain folks here that only rant and can’t answer a clear question put to them. I’d steer clear.
Dr. White (#56) - I think your questions are quite fundamental and actually reflect the heart of a good deal of the debate I’ve seen on this and other blogs. Folks seem to react to FV statements because they assume that covenantal union with Christ is and always is salvific union. Thus, that union’s reserved for the elect alone. If we take that position (which I used to), we grant a tremendous foothold to Arminians in passages that we just can’t handle convincingly (specifically, apostacy passages). If, however, we distinguish ‘twixt covenantal union and saving union, we have a better theological matrix and far fewer problem passages (plus, we yank the carpet out from under the Arminians!). If we have that distinction in hand, we need to examine it and define EXACTLY what we mean by covenantal union (a broader designation) and saving union.
To be as simple as brief as I know how: to be in covenantal union (CU) is to be brought by God into the communion of his people, under the stipulations of his covenant and the consequent sanctions. To be in saving union (SU) is to be in CU and in addition, by God’s grace, to meet the stipulations and be consequently blessed. The stipulations of the COG of faith and repentance are met in the decretally elect because God works those graces in them. One can be in CU (but not SU) without faith and repentance, but when it’s evident that faith and repentance are not present in the covenant member, God’s given his church means and commands to cut such out of the covenant. The person who’s cut out is now subject to all the curses of the covenant. More curses than he would have had were he never CU.
Maybe that’s enough to generate discussion with a little more focus.
David Weiner said,
August 17, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Vern,
You said in #55 “One must be regenerate before one can have faith.”
Would you be so kind as to give me a few words on what you mean by regenerate? My description of a regenerate person would hinge on the Holy Spirit having already indwelt that person.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 17, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Chris H,
“When I have lost a debate in various church courts, I did not keep arguing the point, but accepted the loss and moved on.”
Does this mean that when the church court of Louisiana presbytery vindicated Wilkins twice, the critics accepted the loss and moved on? Or am I not understanding how this works?
greenbaggins said,
August 17, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Douglas, the Presbytery is not the final authority in this matter. The Standing Judicial Commission has to rule on this. They will not do so until October. The various courts have different levels of authority. The SJC is the supreme court in the PCA. They are the only ones who can settle a dispute between presbyteries (which is what is currently happening: several presbyteries have voiced concerns to the SJC of the LP’s vote. Furthermore, at least one member of the LP has appealed the presbytery’s decision. He has done so *to* the SJC). I really wonder why it is that many FV guys think that presbytery is the final court of appeal in the PCA. The SJC is the final court of appeal.
Grover Gunn said,
August 17, 2007 at 5:05 pm
It sounds as if we are getting back to the point that the covenant can be viewed from two aspects. There is a whole chapter on the dual aspects of the covenant in Berkhof’s ST. These two aspects are described in various ways: the broader and the narrower sense, the administration and the essence, the external and the internal, the legal relationship and the communion of life, etc. The regenerate in the church participate in the covenant in both aspects, but the non-elect in the visible church participate only in the broader aspect and only temporarily. This broader aspect of the covenant, related to its administration in history, is implied by the teaching of our standards that infants with at least one parent with a credible profession of faith are to be baptized because they “are in that respect within the covenant.” Not all covenant infants are individually elect, and yet all covenant infants are in a broad sense “within the covenant.” According to our BCO, they “have an interest in the covenant” and will, “when they have reached the age of discretion,” “become subject to obligations of the covenant: faith, repentance and obedience.”
But here is what John Barach said, quoted on page 309 of The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons:
BOQ
The Bible doesn’t know about a distinction between being internally in the covenant, really in the covenant, and being only externally in the covenant.
EOQ
If the FV disagrees with John Barach and teaches the dual aspects of the covenant as explained above, then what is new and different about FV teaching?
Grover Gunn
Douglas Wilson said,
August 17, 2007 at 5:05 pm
And Sean,
I didn’t say what they had. I said they had “something.” That something is the connection to Christ described in John 15. It is the thing, whatever it is, that makes it possible to trample underfoot the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified. And if you prefer the Confession to the Bible, it is that thing which makes it possible for non-elect covenant members to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ through their abuse of the Lord’s Supper — “but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation” (WCF 29.8).
Something, not nothing.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 17, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Lane, then what you are saying is that it isn’t over, and that the courts haven’t spoken, and that Chris Hutchinson was asking my friends to move along prematurely?
Mark T. said,
August 17, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Perhaps, Mr. Wilson would show us exactly where Chris Hutchinson asked his (Wilson’s) friends to move along prematurely, and then maybe he could tell us why he didn’t apply Mr. Hutchinson’s remarks to himself rather than his friends.
greenbaggins said,
August 17, 2007 at 5:45 pm
No, it isn’t over. The study committee report is a shot across the bow, shall we say. It indicates what direction the guns of the PCA are directed. If the FV ships wish to avoid the broadside that is coming, then they will leave.
reformedmusings said,
August 17, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Cute analogy, Lane, and appropriate.
I guess it depends on what one considers “over.” None of the PCA officers who signed the joint statement have come before their presbyteries since the 35th GA. That changed the landscape significantly. Even before that, one presbytery examination committee admitted that they didn’t have time to adequately study the individual’s views. Listening to the recordings of proceedings in another presbytery sounded more like a meeting of a “good ol’ boy” club than a serious ecclesiastical examination, even loaded with apologies to the examinee.
I personally expect the landscape in the presbyteries to continue moving with the 35th GA vote, accelerating as we go through the coming year. As I’ve said many times, it’s a shame that a few men believe that it’s OK to drain the precious resources of the church away from spreading the gospel to require contentious and divisive trials.
David Gadbois said,
August 17, 2007 at 6:19 pm
“There is a whole chapter on the dual aspects of the covenant in Berkhof’s ST. These two aspects are described in various ways: the broader and the narrower sense, the administration and the essence, the external and the internal, the legal relationship and the communion of life, etc.”
As with so many things, Berkhof’s ST is definitely required reading on this topic. If folks would humbly digest Berkhof (or, at the very least, read him) a whole lot of the current confusion and resulting novelties would never have been generated.
Michael Saville said,
August 17, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Lane, how could a member of Lousiana Presbytery appeal when there was (to my knowledge) no trial held?
Dean Bekkering said,
August 17, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Pastor Wilson
RE #66
Would a NENonCM not be guilty of body and blood of the Lord? I think this is the logical question that arises from your distinction. Or would the NENonCM be not guilty because he is not in something that the NECM is in?
I think CD III&IV 4 is helpful here. “There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, … But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God, and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”
Both the NECM and the NENonCM, or preferable just plain old reprobate, both be guilty of the blood of the covenant because of the natural light in them leaves them without excuse.
Dean
tim prussic said,
August 17, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Dean, I’m not pastor Wilson, but I’ve been accused of being his bull dog (!)…
I think you’re onto something, but you’re possibly barking up the next tree over. Specifically, the BLOOD of the covenant refers to the COG and the sacrifice of the mediator of the covenant. NENCMs are under the covenantal curses of the COW, right? They broke the covenant (as we all did) in their father Adam. However, one who come to the COG, takes *that* covenant upon himself (or who’s born into it) and is a reprobate will incur greater curses. To whom much is given… he’s sinning against greater light. Since every sin will be accounted and punished, the NECM will be under a greater condemnation than NENCMs. Part of that greater condemnation will be the curses of the COG.
Dean Bekkering said,
August 17, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Tim
If a person straight from the “hood” visited your church and sat next to you. You knew this person enough to know that he did not have any visible fruit and was not baptized. When the bread was being passed for communion and he took out his hand and took a piece would you immediately think that was OK. Would you think that since he is not baptized it would be impossible for him to eat and drink damnation to himself?
Or would you direct him to I Cor 11:27 and emphasize the WHOSOEVER part of the verse that ends with “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”
How can the NENonCM be guilty of the blood of the Lord? How is this “blood of the Lord” different from the “blood of the covenant”? What qualitative differences would the FV advocates distinguish between the “blood of the covenant” and the “blood of the Lord”?
Not withstanding I believe that the one who was in the visible church or broad form of the COG would be under greater condemnation. I also believe that Judas will be under greater condemnation that my grandmother who is in the visible church but does not have any fruit or understanding of the gospel.
Dean
pduggie said,
August 17, 2007 at 8:26 pm
“The SJC is the final court of appeal”
I would have thought GA was tghe final court, but it seems they have delegated their authority to some hand-picked folks.
pduggie said,
August 17, 2007 at 8:29 pm
“If the FV disagrees with John Barach and teaches the dual aspects of the covenant as explained above, then what is new and different about FV teaching?”
Biblicism. Saying “Who cares about all the fine distinctions we think we need to make to keep our theology ‘consistent’” What’s important is talking to our people with the words of the bible, inspired directly by God, and letting God;’s word do its work instead of thinking we’re cleverer than God and need to remind covenant people they MIGHT fall out all the time, instead of reminding them of all the GOOD BLESSINGS the “REALLY” have, not just “externally” can be said to have.
Joint FV Statement - Paedo-Communion « Reformed Musings said,
August 17, 2007 at 8:56 pm
[...] behind. I will be perpetually behind at this rate. Green Baggins has posted a nice write-up on Justification by Faith Alone. Don’t miss the comments in these discussions. While there are some unfortunate comments, [...]
Grover Gunn said,
August 17, 2007 at 9:24 pm
In #43 above, Doug Wilson sounds like he is affirming the traditional Reformed concept of the dual aspects of the covenant (see Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, pp. 284ff) while maybe tweaking the terminology. Yet the statement by John Barach sounds like a clear denial of the substance of the traditional Reformed concept of the dual aspects of the covenant. This is an example of why the FV is confusing.
On June 26 on another blog, a FV advocate defended this quotation by John Barach. I sent in the following response:
BOQ
For an argument against the teaching that there is no qualitiative distinction between the covenant union (narrowly considered) experienced by the regenerate and the covenant union (broadly considered) experienced by the non-elect in the visible church, I recommend this article by Doug Wilson:
http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=358
EOQ
Grover Gunn
tim prussic said,
August 17, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Dean, it’s “da hood.”
Douglas Wilson said,
August 17, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Dean, the nonbeliever is a covenant breaker before God in Adam, no blood of the new covenant involved. A non-elect member of the new covenant, however, is sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. He is a covenant breaker in a double sense.
Grover, thanks for catching the point of that quote. I believe that was the same one the PCA study committee understood backwards. I differ with some of my FV friends on that point, so it need not be confusing. And some other of my FV amigos have qualified their language in a more traditional direction, which I was happy to see.
MarkT, I didn’t apply the remarks to myself because I am not in the PCA. In the CREC I was examined, everything was fine, and we have moved on.
Reformedmusings, you said: “As I’ve said many times, it’s a shame that a few men believe that it’s OK to drain the precious resources of the church away from spreading the gospel to require contentious and divisive trials.”
To which someone might reply, “Why are you wasting my time getting beat up like you are? What are you doing lying on the ground like that? Why do you think it is appropriate to get blood from your face all over my knuckles?” I like that — the people bringing charges, making accusations, creating controversy, and so on, then turn around and accuse those they are attacking of wasting their precious time. You really ought to know enough about this controversy to be able to state who is on offense, and who on defense.
reformedmusings said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:00 pm
RE #76
puggie,
The GA appoints and oversees the SJC (RAO 17-1). BCO 15 governs the interaction between SJC decisions and the GA. Specifically BCO 15-5 covers the GA consideration of SJC decisions which result in formal minority reports.
The 24 SJC members are all elected by the GA. They are not hand-picked. Nominations come from the presbyteries to the nominating committee, the members of which are also nominated by the presbyteries and approved by the GA. Like all recommendations by the nominating committee, commissioners may make nominations from the floor for the SJC (BCO 15-4). The process could hardly be described as hand picking.
reformedmusings said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:26 pm
RE #81
DW,
Cute, but WAY off point. This is not an arbitrary or trivial situation like the one you posit. Please see comment #57. Since you aren’t in the PCA, I guess that I shouldn’t expect you to honor our denomination’s rulings, though as a Christian brother you probably should not aid and abet those who defy them. Your call. However, I do expect PCA officers to submit to their PCA brothers since they swore an oath in that regard.
As for creating controversy, the PCA was generally doing well until the Auburn Avenue conference in 2002. The PCA, RCUS, BPC, OPC, OCRC, RPCNA, and URC didn’t start anything. That distinction belongs strictly to those who are trying to redefine the Westminster Standards and 3FU over the objections of the overwhelming number of their brothers in seven denominations (so far). Not your denominations, but a Christian brother shouldn’t be inciting or aiding dissent within other ecclesiastical bodies. Again, your call.
Robert K. said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:30 pm
***“If the FV disagrees with John Barach and teaches the dual aspects of the covenant as explained above, then what is new and different about FV teaching?”
Biblicism. Saying “Who cares about all the fine distinctions we think we need to make to keep our theology ‘consistent’” What’s important is talking to our people with the words of the bible, inspired directly by God, and letting God;’s word do its work instead of thinking we’re cleverer than God***
You’re a bit off-message here, pduggie. FVists are claiming to be in conformity to the confessions. They want much more than you naively write here.
ON BERKHOF AND FVISTS
I have seen some anecdotal evidence in his internet writing that Doug Wilson tends to avoid Berkhof like Arminians tend to avoid certain verses and passages of the Bible. Just like they avoid Geerhardus Vos. The later avoidance is more damning in that FVists have affected to claim the mantle of the true and only practitioners of Reformed biblical theology. There are many things that make FVists look comical, the very existence of Vos is one of them.
Sean Gerety said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:33 pm
didn’t say what they had. I said they had “something.” That something is the connection to Christ described in John 15. It is the thing, whatever it is, that makes it possible to trample underfoot the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified.
John 15 says nothing about non-elect covenant members and I don’t know how many times the parable of the vine and the branches has to be explained to you men?
Something, not nothing.
I realize you are always trying to get something from nothing, like in your attempt to make false brothers real brothers in RINE [96]. Magic aside, those who are cut away are those who appear to be, but are not, Christians; members of the CoG. False teachers included. Remember, Jesus said; “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” And, if there were any questions about what it means to abide in Christ, since the Gaffinesqe nonsense about existential union has impressed some, Jesus explains it in v. 7
Grover Gunn said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:36 pm
In #81, Doug Wilson said,
BOQ
Grover, thanks for catching the point of that quote. I believe that was the same one the PCA study committee understood backwards. I differ with some of my FV friends on that point, so it need not be confusing.
EOQ
Yes, that is the citation which was removed after the first public posting of the study report.
I find your comment above helpful and enlightening. If you accept the dual aspects of the covenant, then I would think you would also reject the interpretations of Paul’s epistles found in some FV articles in which all to whom one of Paul’s letter is addressed are interpreted as being uniformly justified, adopted, saved, forgiven, etc. I address this issue here:
http://jacksongrace.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/the-visible-church-as-the-saints/
If you have the time to read this, I would appreciate your response.
Grover Gunn
Dean Bekkering said,
August 17, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Pastor Wilson
How does the WHOEVER in I Cor 11:27 not apply to the non-elect non-covenant members?
Am I to always interpret the word “whosoever” to always not apply to the non-elect non-covenant members? Does this mean that when Jesus said “whoever commits sin is a slave of sin” He was not referring to the non-elect non-covenant member?
Vern Crisler said,
August 17, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Hi Grover,
The problem is that FVists do tend to accept the dual aspect of the covenant THEORETICALLY, but tend to deny its relevance at a PRACTICAL level. It all has to do with their “objectivist” view of the covenant, not reading the decree, etc.
Vern
Dean Bekkering said,
August 17, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Pastor Grover
Barach is not the only guilty party. Lusk in talking about NT Wrights understanding of corporate justification says, “But note this does not leave him unconcerned with questions of individual salvation and assurance; indeed Wright, rightly, reminds us that if you have the corporate, you get the individual thrown in as well.” NT Wright and Reformed Theology - Friend or Foe pp24
If I understand this FV stuff correctly then Lusk believes once you are brought into the covenant by baptism and have a justification in some sense which is really a corporate justification you get the individual justification thrown in as a bonus feature.
Am I to believe they are offering free individual justification over by the baptismal fount at Trinity Presbyterian Church? How else should I understand this?
Robert K. said,
August 18, 2007 at 1:01 am
Doug, could you post a list of all the Reformed theologians of the present and past who you deem to *not be* Reformed? We have already:
Thomas Boston
Robert L. Reymond
Louis Berkhof
Ursinus (remember, he didn’t live up to the FV claim that he denied the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, so he’s out)
Geerhardus Vos (he’s a difficult presence to deal with, he makes Leithart sound like Al Franken; well, fortunately Vos is still seen suspiciously in Reformed circles for spawning people who eventually influences people like us, so if they don’t like him we don’t have to smear him for now)
Meredith G. Kline (oh Great Enemy of Theonomy, rest in peace, fallen foe, but we will continue to use you as an epithet based on that quacky theory of yours on the days of creation, that deflects enough from the fact that your writings make us all look like Al Franken)
Edward Fisher (we havn’t mentioned him much, but he is REALLY not Reformed, whoever he was)
Bunyan
John Owen (outed by the FV as a drug addict)
Spurgeon (probably had six or seven wives at the same time)
Calvin (NO! We must keep Calvin to maintain our authenticity. We learned this from our theonomy days. Lose Calvin and you lose everything!)
Edwards (nobody actually reads Edwards, so FV can claim him or dismiss him as not Reformed…save for later)
A. A. Hodge (not in wide circulation, attack him if necessary, meanwhile let the dead dogs lie)
Dabney (Dabney’s surprisingly a wobbly here and there, we can use him, save for later)
Dathenus (right, until more than two people know about him don’t waste time building a necessary cache of deceptive quotes from his work, but he could be a danger if he gets more widely known, then again, law and gospel it too easy to junk up with sophistic weaponry, so don’t wast any time with him)
John Brown of Haddingtom (ha ha, nobody remembers him, don’t waste your time cutting his knees out)
Dutch Calvinists, Witsius/Brakel/et al (ethnic fetishes, could be trouble as they get better known, better start building up some files on each of them)
Any others, Doug?
Robert K. said,
August 18, 2007 at 1:43 am
See the FVists from a larger perspective. They’ve developed their new doctrine. Their new system of salvation. As is usual taken piecemeal from bad doctrine of the past, but their unique ‘brew’ (a metaphor they like to use, by the way). But they are proud false teachers. They are cool and proud. They know there’s no point in developing new doctrine if it’s just going to be seen as another Jehovah’s Witness tract against the truth of Reformed Theology. So the FVists not only want to have their new doctrine, they know for it to be really worthwhile they need to plant it on top of the fortress of Reformed doctrine. Their Dome of the Rock planted on top of the Temple Mount. All this nonsense that has been going on is the rhetorical struggle of the FVists as the scratch their way - or attempt to - up the side of Fortress Reformed Theology. They won’t make it. It’s a ridiculous objective. But they know they have nothing if they just have their brew of bad doctrine. No matter how many they can pull into their net it is all for nothing if the Fortress of Reformed Theology is looking down on them and exposing them for what they are.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 18, 2007 at 7:34 am
That item in the most recent FV document that spoke about ’scholastic and hyper-techincal language’ creating ‘confusion’ continues to grab my attention, especially in light of the responses that this post has elicited. From where I sit this whole thing about the NECM possessing ’something not nothing’ is highly confusing, especially sense Doug is very reluntant to tell us what this ’something’ is! Meanwhile Wilkins and Lusk have run ahead of the pack declaring that it is EVERYTHING that is true of ALL that are in Christ. Speaking as a pastor,if I brought into what Wilkins and Lusk are saying,i.e. there are people who actually do possess ’salvation’ (to use the altar call language, they are ’saved’
at some point in their lives in that they have their sins forgiven because they have been justified by faith alone-as the ENTRY level- if I really believed that, especially regarding my children-I would kill them and guarantee that they wouldn’t lose what they now possess. Then we could spent eternity together in heaven. As it is, all loud protest notwithstanding, what we have here is an Arminian understanding of a contional salvation that is losable.
Sean Gerety said,
August 18, 2007 at 8:32 am
If I understand this FV stuff correctly then Lusk believes once you are brought into the covenant by baptism and have a justification in some sense which is really a corporate justification you get the individual justification thrown in as a bonus feature.
You don’t have to question your understanding, you’ve understood these men perfectly. Follow this one from Joel Garver, a man Wilson cites favorably in RINE:
According to Wilson, “both the true and false son are brought into the same relation” to Christ. So what is the determining factor that separates the sheep from the goats? Wilson explains that “faith in the biblical sense is inseparable from faithfulness…. But when we have faith that works its way out in love, which is the only thing that genuine faith can do, then the condition that God has set for the fulfillment of His promise has been met” (186-187, emphasis added). The ones who, through their faithfulness, “meet the condition that God has set for the fulfilment of His promise,” become sheep. In the objective covenant in which the sinner meets conditions and fulfills his covenantal obligations, thus qualifying himself for the salvation God has promised, Wilson confuses works with sanctification, and both with justification. Wilson’s conditional objective covenant is an outright denial of the Covenant of Grace and the doctrine of justification by faith.
In Wilson’s theology “evangelical obedience” is a condition which must first be met before the promises of the covenant (which both the reprobate and the elect receive in baptism) can be fulfilled.
Wilson quotes Randy Booth: “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).
I’ve cited this before, but notice the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is the result of being a faithful covenant member. Wilson immediately adds, “This is fundamental to the central point of this book. Election is one thing and covenant membership is another.”
For Wilson 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).
Perhaps Wilson is a much better salesman hocking this stuff, but IMO salvation by faith and works has not been better expressed even by the pope himself. I honestly don’t know why anyone takes Wilson seriously? Probably because most Christian men can’t believe what their reading, no matter how many times they read the same thing. Thankfully Lane, Pastor Johnson (he nailed it once again above) and others here believe what they read from these men. Others, who ought to know better, act like they’re fumbling around in the dark.
See ya’ll in a week God willing. I’m off to the beaches on the Outer Banks where I will purge all things FV (and work related) from my mind.
jared said,
August 18, 2007 at 8:34 am
Posters in this thread who are clearly not Reformed:
Sean Gerety
RobertK
MarkT
Well, MarkT is on the fence but I’m sure he’s hanging over on the side that Sean and Robert are playing. The fall is inevitable.
Dean Bekkering said,
August 18, 2007 at 9:02 am
Pastor Johnson
RE Post 99
“What we have here is an Arminain understanding of a conditional salvation that is losable.”
Exactly!!!!!!
The only difference between this and Jacob is that as it relates to covenant salvation Jacob was honest enough to admit that the good works would have to logically be in some respect meritorious.
If not how does it not become meritorious?
Robert K. said,
August 18, 2007 at 9:15 am
>”Posters in this thread who are clearly not Reformed:
Sean Gerety
RobertK
MarkT”
Saying it doesn’t make it so, Jared. You’re engaging in magical thinking at this point.
jared said,
August 18, 2007 at 10:10 am
RobertK,
It’s quite obvious that you and Sean are the “face” of an anti-Wilson cult and, as such, certainly cannot be Reformed in any sort of traditional understanding of the term. Denying it only shows your guilt. I would urge you and Sean repent and believe in the One whom God has sent as a propitiation for your sins. You can still have salvation, it’s not too late!
Robert K. said,
August 18, 2007 at 10:22 am
>”It’s quite obvious that you and Sean are the “face” of an anti-Wilson cult and, as such, certainly cannot be Reformed in any sort of traditional understanding of the term. Denying it only shows your guilt. I would urge you and Sean repent and believe in the One whom God has sent as a propitiation for your sins. You can still have salvation, it’s not too late!”
What I’m about to write is not satire. Jared you’ve written a paragraph of pure cult-think here. You’re defining who is Reformed by who isn’t against your teacher Doug Wilson. Then you seem to come close to saying Doug Wilson is ‘the One’ whom God has sent.
Robert K. said,
August 18, 2007 at 10:28 am
Well, since Doug Wilson and the Federal Vision are the training wheels on Romanist bicycles I suppose it’s understandable you would use such language, Jared…
Dean Bekkering said,
August 18, 2007 at 10:31 am
Sean
Good post!
How do we get imputed righteousness?
Lusk says, “While Wright shies away from the term ‘imputation’, virtually synonymous terms such as ‘recon’ or ‘confer’ are used.” NTW and Ref Theology pp 12
By making ‘imputation’ is the same as ‘confer’ Lusk understand the WCF to teach we receive the imputation of Christ’s active obedience when we are baptized. No wonder they stress the word “confer” in WCF 28.6 so much because they want it to teach imputation.
I would add the phrase “serious and heretical teachings” instead of the word ‘disagreement’ in the following statement.
“But there are also important areas of disagreement or ongoing discussion among those who are identified as ‘Federal Vision’ advocates. Some of these areas would include, but not be limited to whether or not the imputation of the active obedience of Christ (as traditionally understood) is to be affirmed in its classic form.”
I thought imputation was tied to justification which was received by grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone not baptism.
Move this here, move that there, and now I agree with the WCF in good faith because I understand it the way I want to believe. It seems irrelevant to Lusk and his friends that he takes a blender to the ’system of doctrine’ taught in the WCF and creates a FV cocktail.
Enjoy your vacation.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 18, 2007 at 10:35 am
Jared
How do you know you are not one of the NECM? How does anyone know? Show me a single Reformed confession or recognizable Reformed theologian from Calvin to the present ,that remotely hints that a person can actually LOSE their justification and all that goes with it.
kjsulli said,
August 18, 2007 at 11:26 am
Jared thinks unfallen Adam would have fulfilled the Covenant of Works “by faith alone” (#115 here). Is Jared Reformed?
jared said,
August 18, 2007 at 11:54 am
Robert K.,
More of your anti-Wilson rhetoric and lies. May God have mercy on your (and anyone who follows you) soul. Wilson certainly is not my teacher and there are plenty of Wilson critics who are Reformed (like the purveryor of this blog, for instance); but you (and Sean, and those who follow you two) are not. Look at how you even twist my words to fit your hate-ridden agenda! I urged you to repent and believe in Jesus (”the One whom God has sent”
and you turned it into a reference to Wilson? How warped your thought processess must be! Repent and believe, for you will not get another chance once this life is done.
G.L.W. Johnson,
Who is saying anything about losing justification? More importantly, are you speaking of corporate justification, as the Church is the justified body under Jesus? Because one can lose that justification by falling out of the body. It happens every day. No one, that I have read anyway, is saying that you can lose your justification if you are decretally elect. NECM lose the (corporate) justification they have by virtue of being temporary members of the body of Jesus.
As for how I know I’m not a NECM? I’ve no reason to doubt that I am. I believe Jesus is faithful and will keep me and will finish the work He has begun in me. Do NECM’s believe this? Probably. Will they continue in their belief? No. Will I continue in my belief? God willing, yes. Until I show myself to be non-elect, I’ve (and no one else has) any reason to believe or doubt otherwise. I will continue to strive against the flesh that wars against the spirit and I will continue to believe that I have victory through the finished work of Jesus. What more assurance can I (or anyone) have than that? Is my assurance false? I don’t believe it is, in fact I know it isn’t but that is not something I can express (or prove) to you by word or deed.
WCF 18 says my assurance is infallible and that I will never slip so far away from “that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the bretheren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty” that I cannot “in due time, be revived”. Is it possible to believe and agree with the WCF and still be wrong? Sure. Am I? Again, I do not believe so.
jared said,
August 18, 2007 at 12:04 pm
kjsulli,
He would have fulfilled the covenant of works by being obedient and that obedience would have stemmed from his faith in the word of God (see comment #121 in that same thread). This is the same way we “fulfill” the covenant of works, except Jesus is our mediator because, by ourselves it is impossible; hence covenant of grace. Adam had faith alone in what God told him and that faith enabled his obedience which, then, would be fulfilling the covenant of works. Adam didn’t have obedience plain and simple; Adam would not have fulfillied the CoW by works alone. Just as the covenant of grace benefits us because of faith (which nets us someone elses perfect work) the covenant of works would benefit Adam because of faith accompanied by his own works (since he was sinless already). What is not Reformed about that? More importantly, even if I differed with the Reformed tradition on that one point, how would that put me completely outside of Reformed Orthodoxy?
Robert K. said,
August 18, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Jared, you’re an example of a follower of Federal Vision who is simply currently ignorant of Reformed doctrine. You’ve yet to die to the law. You don’t yet have a conviction of your own state as a fallen human being. The Federal Vision wolves prey on Christians like you. You, for instance, are naive as to why Federal Visionists demand to strip works from the Covenant between God and Adam. You’re currently unable to see why works righteousness is death. I can understand your sensitivity to Christians like myself, but even there you’ve indulging a little bit of false piety which you’ve probably picked up from the Federal Vision teachers you obviously been hanging around (hanging around