Assurance, Apostasy, and Areas of Alternate Assertions
August 20, 2007 at 10:50 am (Assurance of Salvation, Federal Vision, Heresy)
The last three sections of the document have to do with assurance of salvation, the nature of apostasy, and the nature of the intramural disagreements.
The first section is not objectionable in what it affirms. There is one thing that it leaves out, however, and that is the place of election in assurance. If one is generous, one can read into “the Word” the promises of election as feeding into assurance. I have hopes that they meant to include that, in which case, if they did, I have no problem at all with this section. (I especially appreciate the fact that they do not make assurance dependent on baptism alone. I agree that baptism is a means of assurance. Many things feed into assurance.) I believe that assurance of salvation is the main reason why we are told about election in Scripture. Assurance is most certainly dependent on our walk with the Lord, as the WCF 18.1 clearly states (”endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before Him”). Notice how careful the statement is. Those who truly believe in Jesus, love Him in sincerity, and endeavor to walk a godly life may be certainly assured. The three conditions are necessary but not sufficient conditions. As it says in section 2, it is really the Holy Spirit that testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God. That is the sufficient condition of assurance. We also agree with the FV statement when it says that those who live in open rebellion against God may have no assurance that they are saved. Assurance does not belong to those people.
The section on apostasy is much more problematic. Now, it is important to note that they use the term “Christian” of someone who is baptized, not of someone who is decretally elect. We do use the term this way when we say that a certain percentage of the world is “Christian.” Usually those figures that we use are quite a bit higher than we would allow if we were talking about just the decretally elect. Nevertheless, the statement does not make it easy here to distinguish among the various uses of the term. One gets the distinct impression that that use is the only use they want to use. But in evangelicalism, surely the more common use of the term is of someone who is born again.
The real problem (the above paragraph is only a small quibble about a term) is with what is ascribed to the apostate before he apostatizes. They say that such people were united to Christ in His covenantal life, that they fall from real grace, and that the connection to Christ is not merely external. Let’s break this down, claim by claim.
Such people were united to Christ in His covenantal life. Almost certainly they have their interpretation of John 15 in view here, especially as they use the branch metaphor in this very paragraph. So, whatever the NECM has, he has life. Chapter 14 of John is usually ignored in FV discussions of John 15. There is not only no mention of apostasy in John 14, but the life that Jesus speaks of is clearly eternal life (look at verses 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19-20 (!), 27). Therefore, the non-fruit-bearing branches do not have the kind of life that Jesus speaks of in verse 14. They have an external connection only (contra the FV statement). Particularly, they have the “cut off” kind of life. They are already as good as dead. Plainly, verse 1 of John 15 is speaking of the visible church, not of the invisible church. It is only in that sense that Jesus speaks of the branches being “in me.” FV advocates really front-end load that phrase. They want to read covenantal life into that phrase. But if Christ is talking about true life, then the FV understanding is Arminian, even if they affirm decretal election. You cannot have a little bit of salvation. You cannot be a geep or a shoat. You are either a sheep or a goat. Period. There is no mutation or tertium quids. What is the difference between a fruit-bearing branch and a non-fruit-bearing branch? It is that they do not sustain the same relationship to the vine. The non-fruit-bearing branch is a sucker, a parasite. He is only externally related to the vine. The fruit-bearing branch sustains an ordo salutis relationship to Christ, and the other does not. The FV stresses that these branches are not stuck onto the vine by scotch tape. No, they are not. But the vine is not salvation, either. It is the visible church. It is not covenantal salvation, either. These branches never bear any fruit. I think I have dealt with the external thing as well.
No one can fall from saving grace. You cannot simply say that apostates fall from real grace, without defining what that grace is from which they have fallen. This is the same kind of ambiguity that has plagued FV teaching from the start. What kind of grace is it? Is it common grace, special grace, or a tertium quid? I suspect they would call it covenantal grace. That’s a big help. What does it do? Does it save or not? Wilkins says yes in his article in the Federal Vision. It just doesn’t save permanently. This is still Arminian, and it doesn’t matter in the least that he affirms decretal election also. To say that anyone has temporary saving grace and then loses it is Arminian. Leave decretal election out of the picture for a moment. Let’s just talk about those who will fall away. If you define what they fall away from as real salvific benefits, then it is an Arminian scheme, however much it may be juxtaposed with a more Calvinistic scheme. Affirming Calvinism in one spot isn’t enough. It has to be thorough-going. I suspect that there is division in the ranks of FV here, although Wilson was willing to put his name on this horribly ambiguous statement.
I will briefly note the areas of intramural disagreement. They are important, and this section is helpful in some ways. The first area is the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. The question I would like for us to debate on this is whether one can hold to the imputation of the active obedience of Christ without holding to the idea that Christ has merited eternal life for us. In other words, what is the relationship of the idea of Christ’s merit to the imputation of Christ’s active obedience? I have found no FV proponents who are comfortable with the idea that Christ merited eternal life for us. Wilson was reluctant in his admission that we could possibly use the term “merit” to describe Christ’s righteousness. He certainly viewed other terms as better qualifiers. So this raises the question as to whether any FV proponent holds to the IAOC. The regeneration question has certainly not been high on the radar screens of the critics. The renewal liturgy needs a whole lot more attention from the critics. They mentioned that the FV agrees on whether there should be a covenantal renewal liturgy, but they disagree on how high it should be. Tim Wilder has pointed out in several comments the importance of the liturgy for the FV. I believe he thinks that it is the key to understanding the movement. Here is another question for our readers, then: does the covenant renewal liturgy fall foul of the Regulative Principle? I am curious as to who in the FV robustly affirms the unique merit of Christ as the answer to our demerit? I thought all the FV guys hated Kline’s guts. Some clarification here would be helpful.
Beth Ellen Nagle said,
August 20, 2007 at 11:12 am
What is covenantal renewal liturgy?
greenbaggins said,
August 20, 2007 at 11:16 am
Well, I think you will probably need to ask them that. It looks so different in different FV churches that it is hard to describe. I think the bare minimum would include the idea that the covenant of grace is being renewed every worship service. Then, they use the church calendar for the most part. A hankering for ritual seems to be rather prevalent. Beyond that, I’m not willing to go.
pduggan said,
August 20, 2007 at 1:35 pm
“I agree that baptism is a means of assurance.”
But Robert K says I’m a heretic for that!?!
pduggan said,
August 20, 2007 at 1:38 pm
“The non-fruit-bearing branch is a sucker, a parasite.”
You made that up. The parable doesn’t say that.
pduggan said,
August 20, 2007 at 1:40 pm
“But the vine is not salvation, either. It is the visible church. ”
“I am the vine”
pduggan said,
August 20, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I’m comfortable that he improperly merited eternal life for us. He patiently waited for his Father to give him the inheritance. He didn’t pay good money for it.
pduggan said,
August 20, 2007 at 1:45 pm
“I suspect they would call it covenantal grace. That’s a big help. What does it do? Does it save or not? Wilkins says yes in his article in the Federal Vision. It just doesn’t save permanently.”
Its the gateway to special grace. Its the context for special grace. Its the revealed things that have been given to us. Its the visible grace of the visible church. Its being-in-communion with the Saints & God their father.
It enlightens you and gives you a taste of the heavenly gift. Keep tasting and you’ll demonstrate that you’re saved.
It saves if you believe what it says to you all the time. It drops you like a hot potato if you reject it.
greenbaggins said,
August 20, 2007 at 1:49 pm
The parable also doesn’t say covenantal union. That’s made up. I am interpreting the phrase “non-fruit-bearing.” I used to work in an orchard, Paul. A non-fruit-bearing branch is *called* a sucker. Sucker suck away valuable sap from the other fruit-bearing branches. So, no, I’m not making my interpretation up, the FV is.
Is it acceptable to say that the visible church is the body of Christ? I thought it was the FV who wanted to say that. Now you are backing away from it.
Christ properly merited salvation. His works had just the positive intrinsic merit that Adam’s disobedience had for eternal condemnation. The fix has to answer the problem, Paul, or we are not saved.
Wilkins doesn’t call it a gateway. He calls it the real thing.
Mark T. said,
August 20, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Is it possible that the FVers are a bunch of suckers?
pduggan said,
August 20, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I’m happy to say the body of Christ is the visible church. But the parable says Jesus is the vine. Isn’t Jesus “salvation”?
pduggan said,
August 20, 2007 at 2:11 pm
“Christ properly merited salvation. His works had just the positive intrinsic merit that Adam’s disobedience had for eternal condemnation. The fix has to answer the problem, Paul, or we are not saved.”
I’ll totally agree that the death of Christ on the cross was the exact dollar amount needed to buy our way out of the hole Adam put us in.
But eternal life was never for sale. It was an inheritance. Christ was the Seed to whom it was Promised (Romans 5, Galatians 2)
greenbaggins said,
August 20, 2007 at 2:17 pm
If the metaphor Jesus is using means salvation, then the non-fruit-bearing branches had salvation, and therefore we have to be Arminians. I don’t think so. If they are “in me” and yet do not persevere, then Christ is obviously talking about the visible church, when He says He is the vine.
pduggan said,
August 20, 2007 at 2:22 pm
“If the metaphor Jesus is using means salvation, then the non-fruit-bearing branches had salvation, and therefore we have to be Arminians.”
Come come now. The rest of the bible is sufficient to ward off arminianism. None can pluck us from the hand, for instance. And “who shall separate us from the love of Christ”.
“Covenantal salvation” is what lets one read john 15 as saying what it says, and also affirming Calvinism”
pduggan said,
August 20, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Is this the right way to gloss John 15?
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me [only externally] that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. [Be internally] in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must be truly in the vine, not externally. Neither can you bear fruit unless you [are internally] in me.”
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man is internally in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone [is not in me internally], he is like a branch that [was only in me externally and then] is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.”
pduggan said,
August 20, 2007 at 2:29 pm
it is a falling away from that-which-if-they-had-persevered-in-they-would-have-been-saved-which-in-itself-was-a-loving-gift-of-a-gracious-God
David Gadbois said,
August 20, 2007 at 3:34 pm
pduggan, the fact that a completely artificial category (which is seemingly undefined) has to be cobbled together by the FV in order to avoid Arminianism is not going to inspire trust in anyone except the already-converted. This is pure and unadulterated sophistry.
And, no, if they had persevered they would not have been saved. They needed to be born again in order to be saved.
BTW, that is no gloss of John 15. That is the analogy of faith at work.
james raisch said,
August 20, 2007 at 3:52 pm
David Gadbois, post #15 is arminiansim. Federal Visionism IS Arminianism and is staring in the faces of true tradition Presbyterian and Reformed Christians. It is time to act to remove the FVists from P&R denominations because what (fv) is staring at you folks is an ugly, deformed MONSTER.
pduggan said,
August 20, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I usually like to think of zwingly on Esau when contemplating what is lost by the non-elect within the covenant
“What then of Esau if he had died as an infant? Would your judgment place him among the elect? Yes. Then does election remain sure? It does. And rejection remains also. But listen. If Esau had died an infant he would doubtless have been elect. For if he had died then there would have been the seal of election, for the Lord would not have rejected him eternally. But since he lived and was of the non-elect, he so lived that we see in the fruit of his unfaith that he was rejected by the Lord ”
What one says a non-elect covenant member has synchronically differs from what we say he has diachronically.
greenbaggins said,
August 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm
You keep using these words (synchronically and diachronically). I do not they mean what you think they mean. (Spanish accent)
So when does one change from the one to the other. You who reject many Reformed doctrines because they use unbiblical words have just used the grand-daddies of unbiblical words: synchronic and diachronic.
pduggan said,
August 20, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“in time”
“from an eternal perspective (which we lack, generally)”
Did you ever have an answer to the question if God really meant it when he told Moses he would make a new nation out of him? If you can answer that I’ll try to answer how people can loose salvation while never really possessing it.
greenbaggins said,
August 20, 2007 at 4:32 pm
That one’s easy, Paul. God said it to test whether Moses would be a true mediator for the people, or whether he would cut his losses and leave the people. It was a test. God says lots of things that are conditional upon something that God knows very well will never happen. That is quite different from saying that someone can really possess salvation (Wilkins disagrees with you, by the way. You say they never really possessed salvation; Wilkins says they did), and then lose it, as if salvation ever depends on the condition of our obedience.
Robert K. said,
August 20, 2007 at 4:45 pm
pduggie, are you wearing a pointy hat with a bell at the tip as you write these comments? Pointy shoes as well?
On a more serious note: these FVists unconsciously (but the spirit of disobedience only really works in the unconscious) have the full measure of the devil’s tactics. Let’s see a show of hands: how many Reformed Christians here have had just a twinge of hesitation in referencing a Reformed theologian like a Berkhof, for instance, as a result of these trolls making the names of good, sound Reformed theologians questionable or fit for mockery? How many? Be honest. This is what happens when you entertain devilish fools this long. It’s been too long.
Federal Vision gives the D students in the class power to grade the papers. This is painful to witness.
Robert K. said,
August 20, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Some might say I get too worked up over these FVists. But I suppose there’s always been something very annoying in trolls’ ability to come into an environment and just debase everything. It’s difficult to do battle with people who are at the level of shamelessness where they don’t recognize the inherent meaning in words or the value of a language such as a school of theology. Such a degree of lack of conscience and respect brings the chaos one suspects exists in hell (or some of the Marxist nightmares of the 20th century). Obviously they are being ghettoized (and one would wish they would just quickly ghettoize themselves completely behind the walls of Vatican city; the quicker the better, Federal Vision).
reformedmusings said,
August 20, 2007 at 5:31 pm
pduggan,
RE #14 - nobody is glossing over anything. The FV use of John 15 is the same as the Arminian use. I covered the classic Reformed interpretation of John 15 here, which I believe that you’ve read before:
http://reformedmusings.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/john-152-the-same-sap/
Lane is exactly on target when he says that the FV folks coined a their own terms and categories to cover their interpretation of John 15: the “covenentally elect” in the “objective covenant.” No such terms or concepts appear in the Scriptures or in the Standards. These external FV concepts form the framework from which they approach Scripture, as I discuss here:
http://reformedmusings.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/failure-to-communicate/
On this, the PCA study report on the Federal Vision says:
The Committee would suggest that the FV proponents have in effect provided an alternative hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture. They have done so 1) by concentrating their efforts on the “objectivity” of the covenant, 2) by stressing the “covenantal” efficacy of baptism, 3) by focusing on the undifferentiated membership of the visible church, 4) by holding the view that the “elect” are covenant members who may one day fall from their elect status, and 5) by highlighting the need for persevering faithfulness in order to secure final election.
If anyone has any doubt that this is correct, contrast the FV (esp. Steve Wilkins’
interpretation of Titus 3:5 (that baptism confers justification, adoption, sanctification, etc., to all (including the reprobate) in the visible church but not necessarily perseverance) with Calvin’s comments on the same verse. Calvin makes it clear several times that, in the context of those verses, Paul refers to believers only, yet the FV say that Paul refers to even unbelievers in the visible church. This cuts to the heart of the fact that only the elect from before the foundation of the world have, or even can have, a vital union with the vine, the rest being suckers in the agricultural sense that Lane uses the term here.
tim prussic said,
August 20, 2007 at 5:33 pm
David G., what “completely artificial category” are you speaking of, covenantal salvation?
If so, I don’t think that covenant membership, broadly understood, is anything new at all. Possibly the specific terminology is, but such “sophistry” as identifying the visible people of God with God’s salvation for his people has always required that distinction be made, that is, it’s always required “sophistry.” Sometimes sophists use terms like “visible” and “invisible,” sometimes “militant” and “victorious.” More recenlty some have suggested “temporal” and eschatological,” and even some others.
My distinctions are okay, but yours are sophistry.
Pastor Lane, I do appreciate your notion above that suckers draw sap (basically using the energy of the tree) and are fruitless anyway. I think that’s quite helpful and does reveal an element of the damage that NECMs do to the church as well as the need for church discipline.
reformedmusings said,
August 20, 2007 at 7:02 pm
tim,
If so, I don’t think that covenant membership, broadly understood, is anything new at all.
The broad and narrow consideration of the COG aren’t new. However, ascribing the saving graces of justification, adoption, and sanctification to those in the covenant broadly considered, i.e., the visible church, is both new, unbiblical, and unconfessional. From the PCA study report:
Though it is common in Reformed theology to use the term covenant of grace both broadly and narrowly – that is, to speak of it entailing everyone who is baptized into the Christ-professing covenant community (broad) and in reference to those who are elect members of the invisible church, united to Christ by the Spirit through faith (narrow) – nevertheless, the Confession never speaks as if all those who are in the covenant of grace broadly considered (the visible church) are recipients of the substance or saving benefits of the covenant of grace narrowly considered (the invisible church). This is a vital distinction, and so those who deny or confuse it, or who assert that all the benefits of the covenant of grace accrue to all who are baptized, do err and are out of accord with both the Scriptures and the
Confession (LC 61; Rom. 9:6, 11:7).
That is the classic Reformed, Confessional, and Scriptural distinction.
pduggie said,
August 20, 2007 at 8:10 pm
So God didn’t “really mean it” and have any intention of ever making Moses a new nation. Just something he said, without really meaning it.
pduggie said,
August 20, 2007 at 8:33 pm
reading your bit on John 15
1. The quote about “universal sap” seems to be irrelevant, since Calvin is refuting natural grace, not grace associated with the visible church.
2. “it will not avail any man at all to have been grafted unless he cleaves fast to the vine, and so draws juice out of it.”
I totally agree. None of the grace and sap offered in the vine to the unregenerate branches will be of any use unless the branch cleaves. But the branch HAS been grafted.
3. “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit As some men corrupt the grace of God, others suppress it maliciously, and others choke it by carelessness, Christ intends by these words to awaken anxious inquiry, by declaring that all the branches which shall be unfruitful will be cut off from the vine But here comes a question. Can any one who is engrafted into Christ be without fruit? I answer, many are supposed to be in the vine, according to the opinion of men, who actually have no root in the vine Thus, in the writings of the prophets, the Lord calls the people of Israel his vine, because, by outward profession, they had the name of The Church. ”
Some people can choke the grace of God? I thought it was irresistible?
So the answer to Calvin’s question “Can any one who is engrafted into Christ be without fruit? ” seems to be “Yes” (the geneva bible quote implies “yes” since it admits that there will be those GRAFTED who don’t CLEAVE) or it seems he dodges it by saying “yes, but only by name”. I also think there was alot MORE to Israel being God’s vine than their “outward profession”. Is that REALLY all there was to it?
4.”Not that it ever happens that any one of the elect is dried up, but because there are many hypocrites who, in outward appearance, flourish and are green for a time,”
How is it that they flourish? Their own resources, or something from God/the vine? I surely agree that none of the elect are ever dried up.
pduggie said,
August 20, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I’d never say people lose salvation by lack of obedience. People who “lose” salvation would only “lose” it by repudiating faith.
Carol Kendran said,
August 20, 2007 at 8:41 pm
But the hour is coming and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. John 4:23-24
By putting so much emphasis on the visible church and its outward rituals, aren’t we reverting back to the temporal and provisional aspects of the law?
Here is my question - according to this verse, does a Christian have the ability to worship in spirit and in truth with or without the visible church?
I am thinking particularly of those Christians who live in communist or Muslim countries - those who are imprisoned or in labor camps who do not enjoy the benefits of religious freedom that allow us to worship together in the visible church. It seems to me that we are limiting the work of the Spirit to the visible church. Isn’t that a contradiction to the verses above? Paul says in Romans that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. By limiting the work of the Spirit to just the visible church, aren’t we in a sense attempting to separate some if not many from the love of Christ?
It is my understanding especially from these verses that true worship is not limited to space and time - that the body of Christ is made up of those who worship the Father in spirit and in truth, whether visible or invisible. The body of Christ is not a mix of believers and unbelievers as is found in the visible church.
There also seems to be a blur between the body of Christ and Christ as the head of the body. The head is not the same as the body. Christ is not the church. That means there is no salvation to be found in the church - only in Christ the head. The church is the Bride of Christ, but not Christ. Christ is the Groom. How can Christ be both Bride and Groom?
pduggie said,
August 20, 2007 at 8:51 pm
People in prison camps for their public professions (everyone in a camp) ARE in the visible church.
Its too bad they can’t benefit from Word, Sacrament, and Person by personal presence. Its a hard case. But nobody is saying that they are cut off from the Spirit.
pduggie said,
August 20, 2007 at 8:54 pm
in regular reformed theology, there is the concept of “totus christus”. A full “Christ” HAS to have a body. Jesus is not just some guy, he’s the representative of a group, BY OFFICE. He represents the body, and the body is represented by him. To have a full “Christ” requires the Head have a Body. A king without a kingdom isn’t actually a king.
Robert K. said,
August 20, 2007 at 9:22 pm
>”People in prison camps for their public professions (everyone in a camp) ARE in the visible church.”
This is not the Reformed definition of visible/invisible church. There’s a distinction regarding the visible church between organism and organisation, but the prison camp example doesn’t lend itself to this distinction. The believer in the prison camp is in the invisible church and is shut out from the visible church because of his circumstances. (Again, assuming there is no visible church in the prison camp, either organism, i.e. gathering of believers, or actual organisation like a prison chapel or something.)
Robert K. said,
August 20, 2007 at 9:31 pm
>”in regular reformed theology, there is the concept of “totus christus”. A full “Christ” HAS to have a body. Jesus is not just some guy, he’s the representative of a group, BY OFFICE. He represents the body, and the body is represented by him. To have a full “Christ” requires the Head have a Body. A king without a kingdom isn’t actually a king.”
Totus Christus does’t bear upon husband/bride, head/body metaphor. That’s destroying the metaphor. It is a distinction between the whole person and both natures of Christ in reference to how the two natures of Christ interrelate with each other. And because I have a conscience that is telling me to credit Muller’s Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms I will follow my conscience…
pduggie said,
August 20, 2007 at 9:47 pm
The visible church consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion and of their children. Including those in prison camps.
Not only does Robert K NOT KNOW that Adam was not deceived, he DOESn’T KNOW the definition of the VISIBLE CHURCH.
Which explains why he treats professing Christians like dirt.
pduggie said,
August 20, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Funny, I thought Totus Christus was from Augustine, and is exactly as I described.
R. F. White said,
August 20, 2007 at 10:45 pm
In the ‘Justification’ string, I urged the FV 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.
In the Joint statement’s section on Apostasy, we’re right back to that general issue again. We’re told that being ‘united with Christ in His covenantal life’ is a ‘position of grace’ in ‘a living covenantal body,’ a ‘genuine’ ‘connection’ that is ‘not merely external.’
Once again, it looks to me that when the FV group attempts to state the apostates’ blessedness as a function of the covenant and their losses as including covenant blessings, they undercut their case by not clearly and consistently affirming that and how the apostate’s blessings differ from the elect’s. By so much, they leave themselves open to the charge that divine grace, once conferred, is revocable.
David Gadbois said,
August 20, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Tim P said “Sometimes sophists use terms like “visible” and “invisible,” sometimes “militant” and “victorious.” More recenlty some have suggested “temporal” and eschatological,” and even some others.
My distinctions are okay, but yours are sophistry.”
First, if you are going to cobble together ideas like “covenant salvation” you should at least provide a definition for it. Second, is it really so obvious that “covenant salvation” is what John 15 is talking about? That is as much a stretch as any interpretation.
Third, yes, it is still sophistry to speak of covenantal salvation. We use distinctions like “visible” and “invisible” because we ought to say that those in the “invisible” have salvation, while some in the visible don’t. It is so clear, so cut and dried, only the FV could possibly muck things up and complicate things. If I have “covenental salvation”, what exactly am I saved from? If you answer anything other than “saved from the wrath of God against sinners”, then I will answer you and say “why should anyone give a hoot about this covenantal salvation? “
Grover Gunn said,
August 21, 2007 at 12:12 am
I sense a semantics issue. Our confession refers to the common operations of the Spirit.
WCF 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, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: …
Can the common operations of the Spirit involve the mind and the soul in some way? If so, then can’t one say that these common operations of the Spirit are not solely external because they can involve the inner man? And can’t such a statement be in conformity with our Standards as long as one is careful to specify that those who experience only the common operations of the Spirit “never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved”?
On the other hand, can’t a person define an internal work of the Spirit as strictly that which efficaciously enables a person to truly come to Christ and thus be saved? If that is one’s definition of an internal work of the Spirit, then the common operations of the Spirit are strictly external even though they can involve the mind and soul.
Is it possible that some are talking past each other because they are thinking in terms of different definitions of external and internal saving benefits?
Grover Gunn
Robert K. said,
August 21, 2007 at 5:23 am
>”The visible church consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion and of their children. Including those in prison camps. Not only does Robert K NOT KNOW that Adam was not deceived, he DOESn’T KNOW the definition of the VISIBLE CHURCH.”
I was quoting Louis Berkhof. I understand he’s considered an ‘idiot’ in FVist circles.
And it was shown to you that Calvin stated Adam was deceived. You - or one of you FVists - stated Calvin was wrong too. Just for the record.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 21, 2007 at 6:17 am
I raised the question over on the post on justification by faith alone about NECM who do not ‘fall away’ (I illustrated this by referencing the type of ‘nominal’ Christians that frequent the theatres of the some of the more crass mega-churches, you know, the ones who do their best to make the gospel as sinner-friendly as possible by never mentioning uncomfortable subjects like sin and repentance.). They make a profession of ‘faith’, having accepted Jesus into their hearts, and, most importantly for FVers, they submitt to ‘Trinitarian’ baptism.( perhaps you have heard about the ‘revival that recently broke out at Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral where he and his son found themselves overwhelmed with people wanting to be baptized). Thes people live and die in this state. They don’t apostatize. So I asked, what happens to these kind of folk? Doug Wilson quickly responded and said they perish because they lack the righteousness of Christ. But, here again, the FV boys are not using the same playbook. I’ve alluded to this before, but it bears repeating: Steve Wilkins declared in the book he co-edited with Duane Garner,’The Federal Vision’ ( Doug Wilson contributed a chapter to this as well, so I am assuming he read the whole book), ” All in covenant are given all that is true of Christ. If they persevere in faith to the end, they enjoy these mercies eternally. If they fall away in unbelief, they lose these blessings and recieve a greater condemnation than Sodem and Gomorrah. Covenant can be broken by unbelief and rebellion, but until it is, those in covenant with God belong to Him and are His.”(p.60) Earlier, Wilkins declared that this ‘union’ with Christ was accomplished by baptism, which has brought about sanctification and justification(note the order here), so that the NECM are ‘in covenant’ by virtue of their baptism. Well, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.The assumption that all of these NECM will eventually ‘fall away’ proves to be abit of a problem because, as most Pastors know all too well, there are scores of people who fit into this neat litte cubbie hole that is labelled NECM and they don’t committ apostacy- and this extends even to churches that, unlike the mega-churches that I lampooned, are attempting to be faithfully Reformed. I have performed more than one funeral for people like this. Wilson says they perished, but given what Wilkins says, I have to ask ,why? Did they not have ’something’ not nothing? And where they not ‘in covenant’ atleast as it is defined by the FV? When did they cease being ‘in Christ’ if at one point in their lives they were?
pduggan said,
August 21, 2007 at 9:51 am
“Is it possible that some are talking past each other because they are thinking in terms of different definitions of external and internal saving benefits?”
Pastor Gunn, I very much agree. Too many times “external” sounds like or is used as “pretend” language.
Way back in 2005, Joseph Pipa was responding to Wilkins and laid out that some Berkhof had rejected a bunch of varied antitheses (interal/external, essence/administration, conditional/absolute [!]) to settle on legal/vital. But even this one is subject to problems. Vital is great for the elect when you talk about the vine giving the sap. Legal is terrible to talk about the non-elect when you talk about justification. They have the legal benefits of justification? What is that other than justification?
And I’m also dubious that its possible to isolate the legal from the vital when we’re dealing with God. God legally judged Egypt and in so doing gave israel vital life.
So we dance around, and the FV guys are trying to add some epicycles to the mix, which seem less parsimonious. But those epicycles are only less parsimonious if you have no way to detect the wobbles you observe in the orbits.
pduggan said,
August 21, 2007 at 9:52 am
Robert K, If I repudiated FV tomorrow, I’d still say that those in prison camps for their faith are in the visible church, and I’d have the WCF at my side.
Mark T. said,
August 21, 2007 at 10:45 am
pduggie writes,
I have asked two of Wilson’s sycophants to answer for the way he treats professing Christians and, in typical Wilson-disciple style, they have ignored my request.
Therefore, in honor of the kinder, gentler Robert K, I ask pduggie to account for or justify Wilson’s reprehensible (and oftentimes vicious) behavior in light of his occupation as a full-time minister who professes to believe the Christian gospel. You object that Robert “treats professing Christians like dirt”; does Wilson rub your fur the wrong way as well?
Thanks!
pduggan said,
August 21, 2007 at 11:02 am
I think I asked before what Wilson has said here. He doesn’t seem to have flown off the handle here like Robert K. Also he’s not functionally anonymous, which lets Robert K be unaccountable to anyone.
Robert K also seems to be attacking people for thinking out loud, while I suppose Wilson is vicious to critics who are opposing his views.
Wilson’s a sinner and I don’t endorse everything he’s said. What’s particularly vicious though. I can’t think of a particular off the top of my head.
R. F. White said,
August 21, 2007 at 11:38 am
In light of Grover Gunn’s #39, I submit that a reason for talking past each other is the inability to get crucial terms defined clearly. For example, it is not helpful, to me at least, to read, ‘The connection that an apostate has to Christ is not merely external.’
pduggan said,
August 21, 2007 at 12:14 pm
“The connection that an apostate has to Christ is not merely external.” Where was that said.
That would seem to me like a confusion of terms. An apostate is someone who has, in time, fallen. He has *no* connection to Christ. He lost one. And in the perspective of the end, it’s appropriate to say he never really had a saving connection. Its also appropriate to say he spurned the grace he was offered and choked grace by his carelessness.
Interesting question: Were the reprobate angels at one time, perfectly righteous and faithful and obedient? Were they in fellowship with the Triune God?
R. F. White said,
August 21, 2007 at 12:21 pm
The sentence quoted in # 46 was taken from the Joint FV statement, Apostasy section, last sentence of the affirmation paragraph.
Robert K. said,
August 21, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I hope somebody got this moment (#46-47-4
on video.
Mark T. said,
August 21, 2007 at 1:01 pm
pdougie,
First, you did not answer my question, which is typical of a Wilson disciple. If put on the spot, nuance the question or change it.
Second, Robert K is not anonymous; at worst he is pseudonymous. But you have not established this other than by mere assertion, another attribute of a Wilsonite.
Third, Wilson is accountable to no one, despite your assertion, because the CREC is a confederation and not a presbytery, and he wired it in such a way that it has no authority to discipline its members. He can do as he pleases and they can’t do anything about it. They can only ignore him or remove him, and they won’t do the latter because like all good toadies, they know who butters their bread. Therefore, they approve him.
Fourth, for the record, there is no truth to the rumor that the CREC requires its churches to have images of Wilson placed on the wall behind the pulpit so that the rank and file may adore him.
They do it voluntarily.
Thank you.
Carol Kendran said,
August 21, 2007 at 1:24 pm
If someone were to come and chop off your head, would the rest of your body stay alive? If a person is without Christ - unsaved - but a member of the visible church, isn’t he spiritually dead? He has no head. Isn’t that what we have with an NECM? A headless spiritually dead body? What good are the benefits of the covenant to such a dead creature? Except to add more wrath to his judgment? As was mentioned earlier, aren’t visible churches filled with these NECMs?
Colossians 3:1-2 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
These verses seem to me to be a directive to get away from the visible church and focus on the invisible church where Christ is. Right now God has planted my feet on the dust of planet earth for a time, but spiritually I am in heaven with Christ. While on earth, I am visible and need to seek out fellowship and worship with other believers, but our fellowship is spiritual - invisible because it is in Christ. The visible church should be a light pointing to the invisible Christ. But, she is not Christ.
Should not the outward signs of the visible church (baptism, the Lord’s Supper) point to an inward invisible spiritual reality? Without the invisible spiritual reality, aren’t these visible signs meaningless or actually dangerous to an NECM? Isn’t he/she living a lie? Being a hypocrite?
An apostate - are you saying that an apostate is one who had a head (Christ) at one time, but failed to presevere and keep his head on, so he then became headless? Or, he chose to stop believing and chopped his own head off in rebellion against God? I know all this sounds ridiculous, but spiritually, isn’t that the ridiculous picture the FV is trying to draw?
The Israelites were physically delivered from Egypt, but spiritually in bondage because of unbelief. They were dead in both the spiritual and physical wilderness and as a result they never entered the physical and spiritual Promised Land. Only Caleb and Joshua entered because of their faith. With so much emphasis on the visible church as important as it is, aren’t we substituting the physical and temporary for the spiritual and eternal?
pduggan said,
August 21, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Ah. I see now.
I would take issue with that wording. It should say “The connection that an apostate had to Christ was not merely external.”
pduggan said,
August 21, 2007 at 2:14 pm
“If a person is without Christ - unsaved - but a member of the visible church, isn’t he spiritually dead? He has no head.”
That expresses the nature of the dilemma/both-and.
A member of the visible church is a member of the body of Christ.
The body of Christ is connected to the head
But the temporizing member (a member with only temporary faith, and common operations of the Spirit) doesn’t have “true Spiritual eternal life”.
But he has SOME kind of life. The seed springs up with joy because of Christ the head and the work of the Spirit of Christ.
“The visible church should be a light pointing to the invisible Christ. But, she is not Christ.”
Yes but… as you have done it unto the least of these my brothers you have done it unto me. Being in the visible church isn’t the same thing as Jesus, but it *means* the same thing as Jesus. And we can’t say we love God without loving our brother whom we have seen. They are mutually reflective relations.
“The Israelites were physically delivered from Egypt, but spiritually in bondage because of unbelief. They were dead in both the spiritual and physical wilderness and as a result they never entered the physical and spiritual Promised Land.”
Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
My point is that the Israelites had a connection to Christ that is the same connection to Christ that Paul says the Corinthians have. And that’s the one Paul wants to emphasize. Not that the Corinthian church has some new special stuff the OT saints lacked, but with the same stuff, they have to take warning to do better than they are (what with eating at the table of demons, for instance). The Corinthians, because of who they are, must not be led astray and fall from the grace they eat and drink (externally eating? What’s that?)
pduggan said,
August 21, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Mark T
I’m not a wilson disciple. I told you that. I’m a Jordan disciple.
I really have little idea what claim your making about wilson saying anythign wicked. If you want to tell me I’ll evaluate what you say.
I’ve listened to Robert’s laughing at calamity (by his own standards) here enough to know he’s an unwise wicked man.
Terry W. West said,
August 21, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Pastor Lane,
I posted a critique of one your arguments made in the “Decrees and Covenant” thread. I basically used most of the material I posted in my #94 comment along with the material in a couple of other comments under the same thread. I wanted to put it all together in one place. I will put the link here if you are interested in reading at my critique and responding.
The Insistent Use of Bad Arguments part 4
Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
Andrew Duggan said,
August 21, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I think you all would be better off using the parable of the wheat and tares, with respect to unbelievers in the church visible. The tares are part of the field, and they take the water and nutrients from the soil, but produce no fruit and are not part of the harvest. The tares are not wheat, not even a little bit. Why is that so hard? NECMs are tares. ECMs are wheat.
pduggan said,
August 21, 2007 at 3:25 pm
A fair point, particularly about the water and nutrients. But it can’t be *the* reigning paradigm, but one perspective among many, including a vine with various kinds of branches, and an Israel in the wilderness that participates in the Spiritual blessings but dies off, and so on.
We can’t take “an enemy has done this” to say, for instance, that God did not sovereignly determine the precise number of tares he would show grace to within the field for the moment.
And since nobody KNOWS they are a tare at any given moment, I’d want to express the grace of God for the field as the context whereby the wheat finds itself nourished.
thanks.
Mark T. said,
August 21, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Pdougie,
James Jordan is a Douglas Wilson toady. If you sit at his feet, then you will reek of Wilson whose stench covers all those who dwell in his universe; thus, my previous conclusion.
Jordan is no more honest than Wilson and, unlike Wilson, lacks the ability to hide his malevolence. He is one of the chief architects of the failed experiment in Tyler, TX, whose remnants Wilson is gathering to Moscow, ID, to bring theonomy and all its adherents to their final ruin. FV is simply a new hood ornament on an old, beat-up, abandoned vehicle, left for dead on the side of the road many years ago. I encourage you to jump off it before its driver takes you the way of Thelma and Louise. These are bad men with bad intentions.
pduggan said,
August 21, 2007 at 4:08 pm
You still haven’t told me what evil things wilson has said about Fv critics.
R. F. White said,
August 21, 2007 at 4:12 pm
pduggan, to your #52, please define what is (’was’?) ‘not merely external’ about the connection that the apostate had to Christ.
rich said,
August 21, 2007 at 4:17 pm
The wheat and tares parable does not refer to the visible church, but to the kingdom (though its application can be extended in a small way to the visible church). The nutrients of the field are those of common grace. The disciples want to know why Christ doesn’t just destroy the wicked right then and there, just like Isiah says, and the wheat and tares parable is his answer.
John 15 and the parable of the sower are more applicable to this discussion, though I’m more convinced of Calvin’s interpretation than of Green Baggins’.
pduggan said,
August 21, 2007 at 4:18 pm
true, rich. You don’t want to use the wheat and tares to illustrate the visible church, or you’ll end up arguing for no church discipline.
Andy Gilman said,
August 21, 2007 at 4:21 pm
In reply to Terry West’s linked article in #55:
It seems to me the bad argument is your’s Terry. You say:
[BOQ]
First let me say that I agree that the “special” communion/union with Christ that the “invisible” church enjoys is particular to them. That’s not the point of dispute. What I want to dispute is the inference that therefore the other class of church member, i.e. merely visible, has no “sense” of communion/union with Christ. This does not follow from the bare positive affirmation of the “special” communion/union the invisible members enjoy.
[EOQ]
and again later:
[BOQ]
Again, at the risk of being redundant, the conclusion drawn here does not follow and is fallacious. The only possible inference from the explicit statement in WLC #65, is that the non-elect do not enjoy THE “special” union that the elect enjoy with Christ. WLC #65, in no way excludes the non-elect from all possible senses of communion/union altogether.
[EOQ]
Contrary to your argument, the WLC says nothing about a “special union” which the elect enjoy. The WCF says that the invisible church members, i.e., the elect, enjoy, as a *special benefit,* union and communion with Christ. The fallacy in your argument is that you are making “special” modify “union,” rather than “benefit.”
In the WLC statement quoted, the non-elect are specifically excluded. If the non-elect are not specifically excluded, then what is “special” about the benefit which members of the invisible church are said to enjoy? If the FV wants to argue that the non-elect enjoy “union and communion with Christ” in “some sense,” then they are contradicting the WLC. Furthermore, they are engaging in sophistry, because they steadfastly refuse to define the “sense” in which the non-elect enjoy union and communion with Christ. The WLC gives multiple examples of what it means when it says that invisible church members enjoy union and communion. The FV on the other hand, talks in riddles.
Mark T. said,
August 21, 2007 at 4:27 pm
PD,
Please reread comment #44 and compare it to your comment #59. Clarity of language, my friend, will help in this matter.
Grover Gunn said,
August 21, 2007 at 5:27 pm
The apostasy issue raises the question of what is the most an apostate may have once possessed and have now lost. There are total hypocrites who lose nothing but their names on the church roll when they leave. That is why my point is what is the _most_ an apostate may have once possessed and now have lost.
Painting with a broad brush, there are three possible answers to the question above. In a nutshell, they are nothing, something and everything. Here is why this gets confusing. 1) Some FV proponents have made statements which appear to say that the apostate in all cases once possessed everything and has now lost everything. 2) Many FV critics believe that the apostate may have once possessed something (but only something and not everything) and so may have now lost something; some FV proponents may agree with this. 3) A few FV critics appear to believe that the apostate in all cases has lost nothing of any real spiritual significance because he never possessed anything of any real spiritual significance.
Let me define nothing, something and everything in the context of the question, What is the most an apostate may have once possessed and now lost?
Nothing: The non-elect in the church have their names on the church roll and are subject to the church’s outward administration. They do not possess the promises of the covenant. Their baptism with water is not a sign and seal of the promises of the covenant but is strictly a sign and seal of their coming judgment. As non-elect, they are under no obligation to fulfill the obligations of the covenant (faith and its necessary fruits), and God has no desire rooted in His revealed will for them to do so and no sorrow when they apostatize.
Everything: The non-elect in the church have not only the promises of the covenant but the salvation God has promised to those who meet the obligations of the covenant. They are meeting the oblitations of the covenant, although they will do so only temporarily. Their baptism with water was efficient unto salvation. They have all of Christ. They are just as much in union with Christ as are the regenerate elect, although only temporarily.
Something: The non-elect have the promise of the covenant, which is genuine, sincere and precious. God has not given them the gift of spiritual life which inevitably enables the fulfillment of the obligations of the covenant. For this reason, they never receive the salvation promised. They never are in that vital spiritual union with Christ which truly saves. They never bear that spiritual fruit which comes from abiding in the Vine. They do have the privilege of frequent exposure to the means of grace. They may have experienced the resistible common operations of the Spirit. They may have been “almost persuaded.” They may have escaped the pollutions of this world for a season through some degree of the knowledge of Christ. They may have received some spiritual gifts or abilities, as did Judas. To forfeit through apostasy what they do have is a great loss to them, and the fault is theirs alone. God is sincerely grieved by their foolish disobedience and its consequences, even though He foreordained this and is working it to the glory of His justice.
Grover Gunn
Terry W. West said,
August 21, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Andy G,
You said: Contrary to your argument, the WLC says nothing about a “special union” which the elect enjoy. The WCF says that the invisible church members, i.e., the elect, enjoy, as a *special benefit,* union and communion with Christ. The fallacy in your argument is that you are making “special” modify “union,” rather than “benefit.”
Lol, nice try. Union and communion are the benefit, so if special modifies the “benefit” then it follows that it modifies union and communion. But, besides, even if I grant you this, the argument still fails for the same reason.
It would look like this:
Premise 1 - The elect have union and communion with Christ.
Premise 2 - The non-elect are not the elect.
Conclusion - Therefore the non-elect do not have union and communion with Christ.
Premise 1- Squirrels have tails.
Premise 2 - Dogs are not squirrels.
Conclusion - Dogs do not have tails.
See, it is still the same fallacy. You are inferring a negative from a bare positive. These kinds of arguments just do not work. The fact is, Andy, WLC #65, even if I grant you your argument, still does not exclude the non-elect for every possible sense of union and communion, it only describes for us the “special” benefit that the elect enjoy. We can infer nothing, from this positive statement about the elect, concerning the non-elects sense union and communion. Because, just as a dog can still have a tail despite not being a squirrel, so the non-elect can to have a sense of union and communion with Christ, despite the fact that they are not the elect.
Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
Carol Kendran said,
August 21, 2007 at 8:53 pm
My, oh, my! I don’t think I have ever read such confusing tangled up theology! Nothing-something-everything? Let your yes be yes and your no be no!
Praise God for the Holy Spirit and the pure simplicity of the gospel!
I thought Christ met all the obligations of the covenant for me. There is no way that I can even come close to meeting them. I am dead but have been raised with Christ. When the Father looks at me, He sees Christ - not me.
I am accepted because Christ lives in me. Galatians 2:20
The bottomline issue for the FV is imputation vs. infusion. Imputation blows FV perseverence theology out of the water. Infusion fits in with the FV template. Do you believe that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us? Yes or No? Not Yes AND No but Yes OR No! I have yet to read or hear ONE FV proponent give a clear definitive answer to that question. They refuse to do that. So, we can only conclude that they are dodging the issue because they know they are in error but don’t want to be caught.
R. F. White said,
August 21, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Grover Gunn, thank you for your comments in #65. Personally, I hesitate only at your sentence about what Judas had, though I can imagine why you assert what you do. Overall, I’m reading that the blessings on the apostate are derived from the ministry of the Word and the Spirit in the covenant community, the Word publishing to the apostate God’s promises and threats and the Spirit witnessing to the apostate through His signs, wonders, miraculous deeds, and gifts (with the caveat ‘those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased’). If I’ve understood your earlier posts, you acknowledge, in addition, that there are non-saving effects of these common operations on the inner man of the apostate. Am I understanding you correctly?
pduggie said,
August 21, 2007 at 9:43 pm
64: Ok, remind me of what wilson has done in general.
pduggie said,
August 21, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Pastor Gunn: 65 is very helpful. I’m definitely more in the “something” category.
The “everything” category only works for me with modification. Rather than saying “They are just as much in union with Christ as are the regenerate elect, although only temporarily.” I think biblically its better to say “because they were only in union temporarily, that qualifies their union as something other than the saving union the elect have”
Also “since we don’t know who the non-elect are, its best to talk to the whole church, all the time, as those with everything. That makes the promises of God fully trustworthy, and deals with the high mystery of predestination carefully. And even guys in excommunication trials should be warned about all the everything they are on the path to loosing.”
Grover Gunn said,
August 21, 2007 at 10:05 pm
#67
Christ met the conditions of the covenant of works on behalf of the elect in their place as their substitute. He did this through His perfect life and finished sacrifice. Christ enables the elect to meet the obligations of the covenant of grace through regeneration, but Christ does not meet the obligations of the covenant of grace on behalf of the elect in their place as their substitute. That is to say, Christ does not exercise faith for the elect nor live the Christian life for the elect. A branch is able to bear fruit only in union with the Vine, but the branch itself must bear the fruit or be cut off. The Vine enables the branch to bear fruit but does not bear fruit for the branch in its place.
Christ gives the elect the seed of faith, the regenerate heart which responds to the gospel in faith. The obligation of the covenant of grace is faith together with faith’s necessary fruits. The regenerate person responds to the gospel in faith. A true faith relationship with Jesus inevitably bears certain fruit which can be summarized as repentance and new obedience. For this reason, the obligations of the covenant mentioned in the PCA Book of Church Order are faith, repentance and new obedience. See the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Qs. 85-87.
#68
I believe there are examples in Scripture of the Spirit’s giving gifts to people to whom He did not give saving graces. This is a difficult concept, and this is not a foundational doctrine. The Holy Spirit enabled the pagan Balaam to prophesy even a Messianic prophecy. The unregenerate King Saul was numbered among the prophets, and the Spirit came upon him to enable him as king. All the twelve were given the power to heal the sick and to cast out demons. On judgement day, graceless sons of lawlessness will claim to have exercised gifts (casting out demons, prophesying). 1 Corinthians 13 explains the priority of the graces over the gifts.
I think we are on the same page. When Stephen was martyred, he said that his accusers had always resisted the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can have a resistible work (common operations of the Spirit) in the lives of the non-elect. Apart from the irresistible work of the Spirit and regeneration, they in their total depravity will always resist the Spirit’s resistible work. Yet those who experience the common operations of the Spirit are more responsible before God than those who don’t. When they apostatize and lose these privileges and benfits, the loss is real and the fault is theirs.
May God bless!
Grover Gunn
pduggie said,
August 21, 2007 at 10:08 pm
67:
“Do you believe that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us?”
Yes. Any other questions
Mark Horne answers the question this way
“For the record:
1. I believe that those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ to them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.”
pduggie said,
August 21, 2007 at 10:13 pm
“All the twelve were given the power to heal the sick and to cast out demons.”
Its interesting to contemplate that Judas had the right to sit on a throne and rule one of the twelve tribes in the future kingdom, but then he lost that right, and his right had to be given to another.
Grover Gunn said,
August 21, 2007 at 10:18 pm
#70
Yes, I agree that we don’t know with certainty who the elect are, that we treat people as the Christians they profess to be by baptism and testimony until their fruits force us to conclude otherwise.
Well, yes, to be in the covenant broadly considered is to be in the covenant temporarily and to be in the covenant narrowly considered is to be in the covenant permanently. But I think a person has strayed from the theology of our standards if he will not acknowledge that only those who are in the covenant narrowly considered are in a vital saving union with Christ which results in Romans 4 justification, Romans 6 sanctification and Romans 8 adoption.
May God bless!
Grover Gunn
Grover Gunn said,
August 21, 2007 at 10:30 pm
#70
Well, no, when the non-elect apostatize, they lose certain privileges and benefits, but they cannot lose what they never possessed. And they never possessed everything. If they had, they wouldn’t have lost it.
1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
May God bless!
Grover Gunn
Grover Gunn said,
August 21, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Let me rephrase that:
Well, no, when some apostatizes, he loses certain privileges and benefits, but he cannot lose what he never possessed. And he never possessed everything. If he had, he wouldn’t have lost it.
1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
May God bless!
Grover Gunn
Matt said,
August 22, 2007 at 5:40 am
Re: 76…
1 John 2:19 has nothing to do with apostasy. It is about evil false missionary teachers who came “out from” John’s church, but were not sent “out from” John’s church with any legitimate authorization, otherwise they would have continued in the same teaching as John. But they departed from John’s teaching, in order that everyone might know that they were not sent “out from” John’s church.
Look at the context: “many anti-Christs have gone out into the world”. Makes it very clear that John is discussing missionary deceivers.
The usual translation, which Grover quotes, twists the Greek by translating the same words (”ex hemwn”
in two different ways: “out from us” and “of us.” In reality, only “out from us” is in the passage.
(Thanks to James Jordan for pointing this out. It’s another bit of elegant FV exegesis that has yet to be even remotely answered by the critics, and which takes a favorite proof-text out of the hands of the critics. “Mh machaira paidi!”
reformedmusings said,
August 22, 2007 at 7:11 am
#77
Far from elegant, Jordan is wrong in presenting this FV spin. Never remotely answered by critics? You just haven’t been reading the right commentaries, books or blogs, Matt. Here’s Calvin’s comment on this part of 1 John 2:19 in its entirety:
They went out from us He anticipates another objection, that the Church seemed to have produced these pests, and to have cherished them for a time in its bosom. For certainly it serves more to disturb the weak, when any one among us, professing the true faith, falls away, than when a thousand aliens conspire against us. He then confesses that they had gone out from the bosom of the Church; but he denies that they were ever of the Church. But the way of removing this objection is, to say, that the Church is always exposed to this evil, so that it is constrained to bear with many hypocrites who know not Christ, really, however much they may by the mouth profess his name.
By saying, They went out from us, he means that they had previously occupied a place in the Church, and were counted among the number of the godly. He, however, denies that they were of them, though they had assumed the name of believers, as chaff though mixed with wheat on the same floor cannot yet be deemed wheat.
For if they had been of us He plainly declares that those who fell away had never been members of the Church. And doubtless the seal of God, under which he keeps his own, remains sure, as Paul says, (2 Timothy 2:19.) But here arises a difficulty, for it happens that many who seemed to have embraced Christ, often fall away. To this I answer, that there are three sorts of those who profess the Gospel; there are those who feign piety, while a bad conscience reproves them within; the hypocrisy of others is more deceptive, who not only seek to disguise themselves before men, but also dazzle their own eyes, so that they seem to themselves to worship God aright; the third are those who have the living root of faith, and carry a testimony of their own adoption firmly fixed in their hearts. The two first have no stability; of the last John speaks, when he says, that it is impossible that they should be separated from the Church, for the seal which God’s Spirit engraves on their hearts cannot be obliterated; the incorruptible seed, which has struck roots, cannot be pulled up or destroyed.
He does not speak here of the constancy of men, but of God, whose election must be ratified. He does not then, without reason declare, that where the calling of God is effectual, perseverance would be certain. He, in short, means that they who fall away had never been thoroughly imbued with the knowledge of Christ, but had only a light and a transient taste of it. [emphasis added]
I’ll take Calvin over Jordan any day. Note that the Church loses nothing of value at the reprobates’ departure. Also, from the Westminster Annotations:
but they were not of us] Of us true beleevers, who cannot fall away, Matth 14.14. John 6.37 & 10.28,29. Rom 8:28,29,38,39. 2 Tim 2.19. Marvel not, nor be not troubled, that many forsake God’s Church. If they had been found members, they would never have done so. They were in the Church in body onlely, not in spirit; and the Church loseth nothing by their departure, as corn loseth nothing when the chaff is gone (but is the purer,) nor the body, when bad humors are worn away.
that they were not all of us] That none of them were of us. An Hebrew phrase, as Psal 143.2. Chap 3.15. Or, that it might be made manifest in them, that all were not of us, that seemed to be so by their conversing with us. [original spellings preserved]
Again, I’ll take the Divines over Jordan any day. N.B.: These selections are the result of good, orthodox Reformed exegesis.
R. F. White said,
August 22, 2007 at 7:34 am
Grover Gunn in #71–The reasons you rehearse for saying that apostates like Judas had spiritual gifts or abiilities are what I imagined and, I believe, good ones. Thanks.
pduggan said,
August 22, 2007 at 8:18 am
RM: Matt posted an issue that Jordan raised with the translation of the greek., claiming that the common translation distinguishing between “out from” and “of” is misleading.
So to refute that, you’d have to quote someone refuting that, instead of someone arguing from a translation that actually uses the allegedly misleading translation to make its case. Calvin’s exegesis of the *translation* is correct, but if the translation is missing a nuance in the text, it isn’t the meaning of the text.
If you try to convince a JW that their *interpretation* of their translation of John 1 is mistaken, you’ll get nowhere, since their translation is false. Calvin doesn’t deal with the idea that “out from us” and “of us” are the SAME terminology in Greek. So Jordan hasn’t been answered by Calvin.
pduggan said,
August 22, 2007 at 8:26 am
So you wouldn’t tell a potential apostate that if he goes through with it, he will be denying the Lord that bought him and treating the blood of the covenant that sanctified him as an unclean thing?
Two years ago, you told a man, that as a Christian, he was bought by the Lord with a price, and was sanctified by Christ’s blood. If he was elect, he took that rightly, in a fully salvific sense. But if he wasn’t, you wouldn’t warn him that that was what he wad throwing away?
pduggan said,
August 22, 2007 at 8:32 am
RM: so if I eat meat offered to idols, and someone weak sees me doing so and also participates in an idol feast, and actually worships the idol and forsakes the lord, I shouldn’t really be concerned that I’m destroying someone for whom Christ shed his blood, since he was clearly just chaff.
Please answer me without quoting the Westminster Annotations
greenbaggins said,
August 22, 2007 at 8:48 am
Jordan’s interpretation is just plain silly, since the two phrases have to mean something different, unless we want to say that John simply uttered a tautology. The thing that Jordan seems to have ignored is the difference in the verb from “went out” to “were.” So, the phrase means something different in each clause, since the verb attached to it says “went out from us” versus “were (not) from us.” Akin notes the chiastic form of the verse: A “They went out from us;” B “They were not of us;” B1 “If they were of us;” A1 “They would have remained with us.” The difference in verb and the presence of the chiasm both point to taking “ex” differently in the two clauses. Clark thinks that this is a word-play, something akin to a joke that doesn’t translate well into another language.
reformedmusings said,
August 22, 2007 at 9:24 am
RE #80 - Please see #83. So, is FV claiming that we not only have gotten the theology wrong for the last 400 years, but we’ve gotten the translation wrong since Wycliffe? I just went through 9 major modern and older English translations, and not one follows Jordan’s spin. Perhaps FV will publish their own FV Bible now?
RE #82 - What? Who said anything like that?
pduggan said,
August 22, 2007 at 11:44 am
You said people who forsake the lord are chaff, and we lose nothing when they forsake the lord.
pduggan said,
August 22, 2007 at 11:49 am
The word play (obscured in the english) and the context of anti-christ missionaries operating without authorization are mutually reinforcing for the interpretation.
A propensity for John to use word-play and double meanings in his Gospel is noted in most commentaries I’ve seen
pduggan said,
August 22, 2007 at 11:53 am
Translations sometimes have longstanding errors or infelicities for a long while. Check into “whole burnt offerings” sometime
Grover Gunn said,
August 22, 2007 at 1:46 pm
#77
Let me see if I can paraphrase your interpretation of this verse: The antichrists went out from John’s church spatially as traveling teachers, but they were not out from John’s church authoritatively; for it they had been out of John’s church authoritatively, they would have continued with John’s church doctrinally; but (they went out of John’s church doctrinally) that they might be made manifest that they were not out of John’s church authoritatively.
I understand you to be arguing the following:
because they went out spatially on a teaching trip, we can’t also conclude that they went out in the sense of breaking fellowship with John’s church;
because they were not of John’s church in terms of having external authority from that church, we can’t also conclude that there were not of John’s church in the deeper internal sense of true spiritual oneness;
because the did not continue with John’s church doctrinally, we can’t also conclude that they did not continue with John’s church in the sense of continuing in the fellowship of the church as members in good standing.
So, according to your understanding, there is nothing in this verse to imply that these antichrists had broken the fellowship mentioned in 1:7, nothing to imply that they were no longer members of John’s church in good standing, nothing to imply that they had demonstrated that they had never really possessed true salvation.
I disagree. John uses simple words to convey profound theology. His simple words often have many implications. I think you are excessively limiting the possible implications of these simple words in this context because you are using a system of theology as a grid to control your exegesis.
Grover Gunn
Robert K. said,
August 22, 2007 at 1:55 pm
JOHN GILL ON THE PASSAGE IN QUESTION:
1Jo 2:19 - They went out from us,…. Which intends not the persons that went down from Judea to Antioch, Act_15:1, who preached destructive doctrines to the Gentiles, which the apostles and the church of Judea disowned and censured; by which it appeared, that all the preachers of these doctrines were not of them, and of the same mind with them: for this sense makes these antichrists to be only preachers; whereas, though many of them might be such, yet not all; for whoever, in a private capacity denied the Father and the Son, or that Christ was come in the flesh, was antichrist; and to these private believers are opposed in 1Jo_2:20; and it also makes the “us” to be the apostles, whereas they were all dead but John; and these antichrists were men that had risen up then in the last time, and therefore could not, with propriety, be said to go out from the apostles; besides, whenever the apostle uses this pronoun “us”, he includes with himself all true believers, and may more especially here intend the churches of Asia; or rather the members of the church at Ephesus, where he was; nor is it likely he should have in view the church of Judea, and a case in which that was concerned near forty years ago: moreover, such a sense makes the going out to be merely local and corporeal, and which is in itself not criminal; the persons that went from Judea to Antioch were not blamable for going thither, nor for going out from the apostles thither, but for troubling the disciples with words, to the subverting of their souls; nor was a corporeal departure from the apostles any evidence of not being of the same mind with them; for they often departed one from other, yet continued of the same mind, and in the same faith: but the sense is, that there were some persons in the Apostle John’s time, who had made a profession of religion, were members of the church, and some of them perhaps preachers, and yet they departed from the faith, and dropped their profession of it, and withdrew themselves from the church, or churches to which they belonged, and set up separate assemblies of their own:
but they were not of us: they were of the church, and of the same mind with it, at least in profession, antecedent to their going out; for had they not been in communion with the church, they could not be properly said to go out of it; and if they had not been of the same mind and faith in profession, they could not be said to depart from it; but they were not truly regenerated by the grace of God, and so apparently were not of the number, of God’s elect: notwithstanding their profession and communion with the church, they were of the world, and not of God; they were not true believers; they had not that anointing which abides, and from which persons are truly denominated Christians, or anointed ones:
for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the fellowship of the church, as true believers do: if their hearts had been right with God, they would have remained steadfast to him, his Gospel, truths, and ordinances, and faithful with his saints; for such who are truly regenerate are born of an incorruptible seed, and those that have received the anointing which makes them truly Christians, that abides, as does every true grace, faith, hope, and love; and such who are truly God’s elect cannot possibly fall into such errors and heresies as these did, and be finally deceived, as they were:
but they went out; “they went out from us”, so the Syriac version reads;
that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us; the word “all” is left out in the Syriac version. The defection and apostasy of these persons were permitted by God, that it might appear they had never received the grace of God in truth; and their going out was in such a manner, that it was a certain argument that they were not of the elect; since they became antichrists, denied the deity or sonship of Christ, or that he was come in the flesh, or that he was the Christ, and therefore are said to be of the world, and not of God, 1Jo_2:22, so that this passage furnishes out no argument against the saints’ perseverance, which is confirmed in 1Jo_2:20.
David Gadbois said,
August 22, 2007 at 1:58 pm
GG,
But doesn’t this remind you so much of NPP exegesis? They can make a valid point - like the fact that justification implies undifferentiated table fellowship - but then go off the rails by suggesting that that proves that table fellowship is all Paul is really worried about (none of that silly business about being acquitted of sins before God).
Robert K. said,
August 22, 2007 at 2:01 pm
John Gill 1697–1771.
reformedmusings said,
August 22, 2007 at 2:28 pm
pduggan,
RE #85: I’m genuinely not sure how that applies to what you said in #82, where you posit breaking the Lord’s commands in Rom 14 concerning grace towards weaker brothers. Maybe I’m just slow today (it happens).
RE #87: Don’t you think that the Divines or Calvin were intimately familiar with the Greek, or that their comments were based on their knowledge of the Greek text? Is Jordan the first to ever exposit from the original languages?
When I looked at the translations this morning, I deliberately picked them from different manuscript traditions (Received, Nestle’s, and Majority Texts) to compare the differing approaches. Mine was an honest effort to check what you are claiming. Are you saying that translators from all three main branches of NT manuscript families, plus the Reformed commentators from the last 400 years, missed a key doctrinal point that Jordan recently caught to help the Federal Vision cause? Pardon my skepticism, but I don’t think so.
When Dr. Leithart asks if we can do any original theology anymore, I sure hope that this isn’t what he has in mind.
Grover Gunn said,
August 22, 2007 at 2:50 pm
#81
See my treatment of 2 Peter 2:1 at http://grovergunn.net/andrew/andrew.htm.
Hebrews 10:29
Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
The correct meaning of sanctificaiton in Hebrews 10:29 is determined by the clear teachings of other verses. If, based on other verses, one is a Calvinist, then he will interpret sanctification here to refer to the common benefits and privileges of the visible church which, according to Calvinism, can be lost. Every good benefit which God gives to fallen humanity is in some sense based upon the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The benefits here would include baptism with water, admission to the Lord’s table, possession of the promise of the covenant, the common operations of the Spirit, exposure to the means of grace. With greater privilege comes greater responsibility.
The blood of the OT sacrifice enabled the OT people of God to draw near to God and to the holy things associated with God. For a person to use this privilege as an occasion to treat the holy things of God profanely was to call down God’s vengeance upon him. To be sanctified by the blood of the sacrifice as a means to having cultic access to the holy was not necessarily to be sanctified in the sense of being a person of faith who has internal holiness. Not every Israelite was an Israelite indeed. This OT usage is the background of the usage here in Hebrews 10:29.
Grover Gunn
Grover Gunn said,
August 22, 2007 at 3:16 pm
#82
Romans 14:15
Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.
Do some FV proponents teach that this verse teaches that those for whom Christ died can go to eternal perdition?
If one has become a Calvinist based on a study of the clear teaching of many verses, that will influence his interpretation of this verse. A Calvisit believes that everyone for whom Christ died will be saved with an everlasting salvation. I know of three ways to interpret this verse consistent with Calvinism.
1) Destruction in this context does not refer to eternal perdition. That is how John Murray interprets this verse. Destruction in this context refers to great but temporal harm.
2) The elect can be given a warning for their spiritual benefit even though the threat in the warning has been foreordained not to happen. The elect within history can in this sense be spoken of as in danger of eternal perdition. This is Charles Hodges’ interpretation.
3) Those for whom Christ died are so in terms of their profession, not necessarily so in terms of their true spiritual state. I believe this is how Warfield deals with 2 Peter 2:1.
I prefer Murray’s interpretation.
Grover Gunn
Dean said,
August 22, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Pastor Gunn
RE #94.
This is very helpful. Thank you for your contributions.