Wilkins and the Doppelgänger
August 23, 2007 at 10:18 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)
Now we will address this incredibly clear statement of Wilkins regarding a completely separate ordo salutis that is covenantal.
I believe that membership in the visible church brings with it a covenantal form of justification, adoption, and sanctification which would not be identical to the stipulated definitions given to these terms in theWCF.
There we have it. All the terms that we normally associate with the unbreakable ordo salutis are now to be associated with the covenant. Wilkins argues that it is not the same definition of these words that the WCF has. But this doesn’t really matter, since Wilkins hasn’t even remotely proved from Scripture that such terms are used “covenantally” in addition to the way the Confession describes them. He has to dismiss all argumentation for the judgment of charity approach. And, in fact, he has to precisely double the number of terms used in theology to do this. Now, every time he uses the term “justification,” he has to qualify it with “covenantal” or “decretal.” Wilkins has been extraordinarily sloppy in his Federal Vision article, for instance, in delineating the two. Let’s look at it this way. According to Wilkins’s paradigm there are two categories of people in the covenant of grace, those who participate covenantally, but not decretally, and those who participate covenantally and decretally. The demarcation between those two (according to Wilkins) has consistently been some kind of undefined qualitative difference that is related to (but not completely subsumed by) the diachronic, eschatological difference between them on the last day. Here is the question: what makes one persevere and the other one not persevere? Gary Johnson, in recent comments on this blog, has brought up the excellent point of those who die without ever having apostatized from the visible church, but who were never regenerated. That means, according to Wilkins’s paradigm, that they were covenantally justified all their lives, and yet (Wilson’s point now) they were sent to hell. Wilson and Wilkins want to claim that what the NECM has is something, not nothing, and yet it is nothing on the final day of judgment. Well, if it is nothing on the final day of judgment, then it naught availeth for salvation in this life either. That person is not saved. So, in what sense could they be said to be justified in this life? How can their sins be forgiven? If their sins are forgiven, and they never apostatize from the visible church, yet are not regenerated, then one would expect some kind of mitigated punishment for these people. But the FV usually claims that being a part of the covenant increases the punishment for those who are not elect. I cannot think of any solution to this huge problem in FV thinking.
Wilkins sees his Doppelgänger in the mirror, and says to him, “Hello, you’re elect to the covenant, justified covenantally, sanctified covenantally, adopted covenantally, but that’s a sure-fire guarantee of worse judgment on the final day.” That sure sounds like pastoral encouragement to me. That sounds like a recipe for navel-gazing: how do I know the difference between being just covenantally justified versus being really justified? This is highly ironic: the FV is wanting us to get away from navel-gazing “morbid introspection.” They want to treat people as being objectively in the covenant. They want people’s assurance to be based on that. But there is no assurance, since they have to posit a qualitative difference between the NECM and the ECM. That will make people navel-gaze even more to discern whether they are one or the other. The only way to get around that pastorally is never to mention the difference between the two. Pastorally, then, it lapses into Roman Catholicism’s salvation equals visible church. How many times do FV pastors mention in their pulpits the distinction between NECM and ECM as being something that separates eternal reprobates and eternally saved people? Isn’t their emphasis on the fact that everyone in the covenant has the same benefits? Then those benefits cannot be saving in any way, shape or form. If there is the least little bit of overlap between the two categories of NECM and ECM, then the system is Arminian. This is why it is far better, and pastorally clearer, to reserve the ordo salutis terms for the ordo salutis, and not to use them of what the NECM receives. That would only create confusion, as it obviously has.
I wish that just one FV advocate would admit that if no critic can ever understand the FV, then it might possibly be that the FV teachers are unclear, and inherently ambiguous. If that is so, of course, then they are not fit to be ministers. Ministers need to be apt to teach. Clarity is essential in teaching. Confusion is utterly reprehensible in teaching.
Ruben said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:31 am
I think the point of defining the difference between the elect and the non-elect covenant member is important. Is there a difference as far as their membership in the body?
Richard Sibbes thought so. I cited a vigorous metaphor from him here.
Tim Wilder said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:55 am
What is say in your next to last paragraph is exactly what I observed for ten years in a church that taught Shephedism. There is a huge gap in the theory, but one that never is talked about. Any yet these guys claim that they and only they solve the problem of assurance of salvation.
By the way, for those who claim that the critics of the FV are hasty and don’t listen, I put up with that for ten years, waiting and waiting for the leadership to come around and try to make sense of their theology. It was only when Shepherd was replaced by 100% N.T. Wright New Perspectives that I left the PCA.
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:56 am
According to Berkof ’s paradigm there are two categories of people in the covenant of grace, those who participate legally covenantally, but not decretally, and those who participate vitally covenantally and thus decretally.
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:57 am
I thought the MVP accused the FV of conceiving of covenant membership in an undifferentiated manner.
greenbaggins said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:03 am
Yes, Paul, it winds up that way pastorally and practically, because that is the only way the FV can get around the navel-gazing problem. And even in many of their statements, the FV winds up with an undifferentiated covenant membership. And that is really the entire question: how are they differentiated?
Tim Wilder said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:09 am
“I thought the MVP accused the FV of conceiving of covenant membership in an undifferentiated manner.”
Is there even a single thing that the FV has been consistent about?
reformedmusings said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:32 am
Right on target, Lane. I was an active military flight instructor for over 13 years. If I taught my students the way these Federal Vision folks do theology, the landscape would be littered with aircraft and body parts.
How indeed do they differentiate saving forgiveness of sins, justification, sanctification, and adoption from their non-saving forgiveness of sins, justification, sanctification, and adoption? Concrete definitions, please, gentlemen. Where are these things delineated in Scripture (using real hermeneutics, not the silly FV spin) and the Standards? After concentrated reading of their stuff for about a year-and-a-half now, all I see is smoke and mirrors.
Rogers Meredith said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:33 am
But Lane, you do understand the FV guys; right?
greenbaggins said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:42 am
Well, Rogers, that’s difficult to say, and it depends on whom you ask. From my point of view, I understand enough to know that it is out of accord with the doctrinal standards of the PCA, since that has been my focus for quite a while now, and the single most pressing issue. If you ask most FV guys, I don’t have a clue (although maybe Wilson would not say that). The reason most FV guys would say I don’t have a clue is that to understand them and to agree with them are precisely one and the same.
Rogers Meredith said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:48 am
Thanks, BTW how do I fix my URL? It should read paleodoxy.blogspot.com and also, BTW, I do appreciate your willingness to interact with DW.
Tim Wilder said,
August 23, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Re: 9
“The reason most FV guys would say I don’t have a clue is that to understand them and to agree with them are precisely one and the same.”
But isn’t that just Vantillianism? Credo ut intelligam taken to the extreme that belief and understanding require each other?
reformedmusings said,
August 23, 2007 at 12:03 pm
RE #9:
Lane,
Don’t forget that Dr. Leithart also said on his blog that the PCA study report understood FV correctly. Some of his cosigners on the joint statement don’t share that opinion, of course.
greenbaggins said,
August 23, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Hmm, not sure how to fix the URL problem, as I’ve never had that problem (being a wordpress man myself). Tim, I think that Van Til would say that about God and true theology. However, it doesn’t necessarily follow from that that one would have to believe some other form of belief in order to understand it. Otherwise, why would Van Til ever have talked about non-Christian views at all, which he certainly did? He has a whole book devoted to Barth, and many of his books deal with other theologians. I think Van Til would say that you cannot understand false theology truly without also understanding and believing true theology. But believing and understanding true theology is the vantage point from which one can see the other beliefs truly.
greenbaggins said,
August 23, 2007 at 12:10 pm
RM, you’re right, and Joel Garver also said that Waters understood him. For that matter, Wilson has said several times that I get it. So that would qualify my point, but not eviscerate it.
Tim Wilder said,
August 23, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Re: 13
“I think that Van Til would say that about God and true theology.”
Isn’t this what the FV claims they have? So aren’t they being internally consistent on this point?
“He has a whole book devoted to Barth, and many of his books deal with other theologians.”
Over on Joel Garver’s blog there are reports on the conference on Barth and Evangelicalism. One of the lecturers, John Hare of Yale University, argued that Van Til did not understand Barth or Kant.
Well, compare Van Til’s book on Barth to Clark’s book. Clark acknowledged that Barth was the father of presuppositionalism, and that the whole Reformed world was indebted to Barth for this. Where on the Van Til side do you find this acknowledgment? Isn’t the whole Van Til industry about puffing up Van Til as the greatest philosopher who ever lived, on the basis of what in fact were his plagiarisms from Barth?
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 12:32 pm
“How indeed do they differentiate saving forgiveness of sins, justification, sanctification, and adoption from their non-saving forgiveness of sins, justification, sanctification, and adoption?”
decretal, special, invisible, permenant, knowable only via faith vs covenantal, visible, common, impermenant, knowable by assent
Rogers Meredith said,
August 23, 2007 at 12:33 pm
GB I meant my URL as it is listed on your blog under “post a comment”.
Rogers Meredith said,
August 23, 2007 at 12:34 pm
or URI
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Ruben: I’m not sure Sibbes metaphor gets at Leitharts intention.
FV is trying to say things mostly about temporizers, those who temporary faith, those who receive the word with joy, and not so much false professors, hypocrites, wolves, or antichrists.
Tim Wilder said,
August 23, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Re: 16
Jordan is arguing over on Wilson’s blog that decretal is whatever God chooses, and the what God chooses is also exactly whatever happens. So everything real is decretal. How can you, as a self-proclaimed Jordanite, hold “decretal” to be “vs covenantal” or versus anything else, if by definition everything is decretal?
If a man gets dunk and kills his family, that is election, according to Jordan. They were elected to murder. If you believe for ten minutes and then stop, you were elected to a ten minute faith.
This is why the FV can claim to hold to the confessions. First they trivialize the language of the confessions in their minds to simply mean “whatever is is”.
David Gadbois said,
August 23, 2007 at 12:47 pm
“decretal, special, invisible, permenant, knowable only via faith vs covenantal, visible, common, impermenant, knowable by assent”
Nice try, Paul, but this tells us *about* the NECM benefits, it doesn’t tell us what they are (actual definition). This doesn’t actually tell us how, say, “covenental” justification is different from decretal justification other than that, well, it is covenental.
FV is so laughably bad at systematics, they ought to be embarrassed. Of course, they won’t be. But even though they can’t actually define the terms they use, they *will* make an issue out of it, dig their heels in under presbytery exam, and disturb and divide God’s people over it.
Anne said,
August 23, 2007 at 12:58 pm
I’ve yet to see the value or benefit in this strange fixation upon the “temporary believers”, seeing as how they are precisely what no-one wants to be, and since it’s all of the LORD there’s nothing one can do to prevent being of that unhappy, tragic number, if such one is destined to be.
If there was information being provided that could somehow move one from the destined-for-hell column to the destined-for-heaven column, then there’d be a point to it.
But dwelling on the sad reality that not everyone who exhibits signs of being saved actually is is both fruitless and depressing.
Tim Wilder said,
August 23, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Re: 22
“I’ve yet to see the value or benefit in this strange fixation upon the “temporary believers”, seeing as how they are precisely what no-one wants to be, and since it’s all of the LORD there’s nothing one can do to prevent being of that unhappy, tragic number, if such one is destined to be.”
I think that the FV people are afflicted with a pervasive sense that there is something wrong with the churches and with Christianity as it is taught today. Things don’t look so good. This leads them to engage in a covenantal form of morbid introspection: “What is wrong with these people?”
Then the FV proceed to come up with and apply a fix. But if they are going to apply it, the fix must be within the scope of what man can do, so the theology of the fix has to be humanistic: ritualism, symbols, institutionalism, etc.
james raisch said,
August 23, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Didn’t christian reconstructionists advocate lying (ok, I’ll call it rahabianism)? If this is true along with many of the federal visionists coming from christian recontruction backgrounds, maybe we should entertain the possibility that fvers are so spiritually disoriented they do not know a lie from the truth. As more and more P&R denominations and seminiaries are condemning federal visionism (how many more left to do so are there?), it does appear from the blitheringly idiotic adherence to illogic that for the fvers the darkness is, for them, light and lies are, for them, the truth. Sad, pathetic, and NOT the fault of God but rather the result of the fvers own choices.
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 1:47 pm
An orthodox non FV man writes:
“recall … the various ways the Bible speaks about the love of God: (1) God’s intra-Trinitarian love, (2) God’s love displayed in his providential care, (3) God’s yearning warning and invitation to all human beings as he invites and commands them to repent and believe, (4) God’s special love towards the elect, and (5) God’s conditional love toward his covenant people as he speaks in the language of discipline. I indicated that if you absolutize any one of these ways in which the Bible speaks of the love of God, you will generate a false system that squeezes out other important things the Bible says, thus finally distorting your vision of God.”
Could that be the case with grace and union for the NECMS and the ECMS (who are invisble to us) in the church?
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 1:51 pm
“I’ve yet to see the value or benefit in this strange fixation upon the “temporary believers”, seeing as how they are precisely what no-one wants to be, and since it’s all of the LORD there’s nothing one can do to prevent being of that unhappy, tragic number, if such one is destined to be.”
“Crap, if temporary believers can lose the gospel promises, I’d better resolve to believe my whole life, God help me”
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Which is a form of 1 Cor 10. “If those guys had all the same spiritual benefits I have, and lost it by messing with idols, I really oughta flee idols all the more and dont even get near them”
Nicholas T Batzig said,
August 23, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Paul,
With regard to 16.
“How indeed do they differentiate saving forgiveness of sins, justification, sanctification, and adoption from their non-saving forgiveness of sins, justification, sanctification, and adoption?”
“decretal, special, invisible, permenant, knowable only via faith vs covenantal, visible, common, impermenant, knowable by assent”:
Is there any verse of Scripture (or some biblical inference) by which you would back up a doctrine of covenantal justification. I think that there is clearly a teaching on a national, covenantal adoption found in Romans 9 (see Calvins’s comments here about what he calls an adoption of common grace) over against a decretal adoption that Paul said the Christians in Rome could “know” in Romans 8. Its intereting that Paul, as a Pastor, could deliniate for the visible church the difference between a covenantal adoption (e.g. of Israel) and a saving adoption. I can accept even a national, covenantal election (Duet. 7) but where is there any teaching on a covenantal justification or sanctification? This seems like a loose end in FV theology. Instead of having clear scriptural warrant for covenantal regeneration, justification, and sanctification it appears that most of the FV proponents simple create this category in order to fit their system.
David said that the FV men were “so laughably bad at systematics” (point 21.).
David, I have had several indepth conversations with some of the FV “theologians” and they will constantly bash systematics while at the same time they employ “bad…systematics.”
Dr. Mike Kear said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:01 pm
re: 26, 27
So the continuity of salvation is based upon my works - say, consistent believing and avoidance of idols - rather than on God’s sovereign grace and promise to keep me saved?
Nicholas T Batzig said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Paul,
In #28 you say that the Israelites had all the same “spiritual” benefits that you do? Could you define spiritual for us in this context? They had the external blessings that should have been sufficient for them to look for the spiritual blessings in them (i.e. they had Red-sea , fire-cloud pillar baptism, and they had a water gushing rock, manna Supper both of which were meant to point them to the Redeemer. But, as the apsotle tells us in Hebrews 3 and 4 the Gospel (which was found in these typical ordinances) was not mixed with faith.
Your right, you better flee from idolatry. That’s something we can all agree upon. But most of the Israelites did not have circumcised hearts (see Jer. 9) and I do. So to say that they had “all” the same spiritual benefits that I have is not correct. They were not regerate, I am.
greenbaggins said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Dr. Kear, thanks for linking to my blog, I have reciprocated.
Anne said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Paul, that doesn’t hold together. The FV has been largely promoted as a way to provide assurance, hasn’t it? To give help to those who are beset by doubts regarding their salvation.
How it helps to tell someone beset by such doubts that, one, just because the LORD has given them faith now doesn’t mean He intends to keep their faith going, and two, whether they continue in faith is dependent upon them, I cannot imagine.
greenbaggins said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Anne, good points, and welcome back. Haven’t seen you in a while!
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Then don’t you have the same “problem” when John says people believed on Jesus who are ready to stone him 10 minutes later?
the FV says stop trying to look for marks within yourself to give yourself assurance, and trust that Christ did for you, and trust all that he says in his word.
Do we have to be *convinced* that the Spirit has enabled us to understand the bible as a prolegomena to reading it and believing the gospel for salvation?
Tim Wilder said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Re: 32
“How it helps to tell someone beset by such doubts that, one, just because the LORD has given them faith now doesn’t mean He intends to keep their faith going, and two, whether they continue in faith is dependent upon them, I cannot imagine.”
The key is to separate the contradictory ideas into separate sermons, and then make sure not to preach them within a month of each other.
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:28 pm
God does intend to keep everyones faith going. The sower intends the seed to fall on Good soil. He intends to offer salvation to the world. He does not desire the death of the wicked, and he does not desire the temporary duration of anyones faith. He is not willing that those with faith should have merely temporary faith.
Dr. Mike Kear said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:29 pm
re: 31
Thanks!
Anne said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:37 pm
[wincing] Paul, you can’t possibly mean that….that God “is not willing that those with faith should have merely temporary faith”, seeing as how the FV promotes the existence of “temporary faith” to the top of its bent.
Arminians and free-willers are the ones who believe whole-heartedly in temporary faith, not Calvinists.
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:37 pm
“Based upon”? Never! “based upon” = ground.
The start of justification isn’t “based on” faith either. Its based on the work of Christ
But ongoing faith is the path God has set out for the continuance of justification in the justified.
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Theres enough normal Reformed sources dealing with temporary faith in some fashion to convince me its a phenomenon.
Tim Wilder said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:43 pm
In 36: Paul Duggan says:
“God does intend to keep everyones faith going. The sower intends the seed to fall on Good soil. He intends to offer salvation to the world. He does not desire the death of the wicked, and he does not desire the temporary duration of anyones faith. He is not willing that those with faith should have merely temporary faith.”
But this morning on Wilson’s blog James Jordan said:
“God “elects” everything that happens. He elects nations and families to be in certain places and to experience certain things corporately. He elects some people to be temporary believers (parable of the soils) and others to be permanent believers.”
I guess Jordan has lost his disciple!
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Its Ezekiel 18 territory. Someone says “What if God’s ways are unjust and he’s only given me temporary faith”
To that person, God says, Stop thinking like that and trust me now. see the end of those who have forsaken me, realize that I’m not toying with people to make points, and trust that I can save you to the uttermost.
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Lane, your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to find an orthodox Lutheran (there are prolly lots in Nodak) and argue about election and objective justification and temporary faith for a month. Let him tell you everything he thinks is nuts about your position for a while.
Then come back and see what you think.
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 2:51 pm
30: I’m virtually quoting 1 cor 10. They had the SAME Spiritual drink and food that the Corinthians had.
Anne said,
August 23, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Yes, and a fat lot of good it did most of ‘em, as the apostle points out.
One can have all the external goodies and it doesn’t mean zip squat without saving faith, whether one was an Israelite in the desert or someone attending the church at Corinth. Or Christ Chapel or Auburn Avenue Presbyterian or any other assembly.
Nicholas T Batzig said,
August 23, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Paul, you said, “if those guys had all the same spiritual benefits I have…” My point was that they did not have a regenerate heart, nor did they have imputed righteousness, neither did they have God’s preservation, etc. This is my point. You have the obligation to define what Paul means by “spiritual drink and food” in 1 Cor. 10 and how that then relates to soteriological benefits. They had the benfit of partaking of spiritual food and drink only externally and they fell in the wilderness because they did not have faith. According to what you said you can have no assurance that you will not “fall in the wilderness”, so to speak, and go to hell. I am not saying that the warnings in 1 Cor. 10 are not real and are not serious, but it is a mistake to say that all the Israelites had all the same spiritual benefits that I have.
Nicholas T Batzig said,
August 23, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Amen Anne!
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Yeah, funny how faithlessness will end you up in hell.
Why are these Spiritual “goodies”, possessed by the Corinthian church, which is Christ the Rock himself, suddenly “external”? Whenever I eat and drink “externally”, i usually end up messy.
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Spiritual drink and food is defined by Paul as Christ.
Nicholas T Batzig said,
August 23, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Paul,
Did the Pharisees benefit spiritually from the word of God that they so vigerously read and memorized. Jesus said, You search the Scriptures for in them you think that you have eternal life, but these are they that testify of Me and you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” Jesus also called the words that He spoke “Spirit and Life.” What’s more spiritual than the word of God. We wouldn’t even know what the sacraments were if it wasn’t for Scripture. Yet it doesn’t take much to see that you can read the bible all day long (partaking of it in an external fashion) till your blue in the face and go to hell because you were never “born again” by the Spirit of God (remember Nicodemus was a covenant member that needed to be born again). Obviously then you can partake of spiritual benefits in an outward and carnal fashion.
pduggan said,
August 23, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I don’t find Paul’s letter telling the Corinthians to reflect on how they may in fact have more benefits than the Israelites had, and that therefore they are in a different position where they cannot fall.
Paul says the Corinthians always have a way of escape from their temptations, but I don’t think the israelites lacked a way of escape from their temptations.
What am I missing in the Corinthians text?
Anne Ivy said,
August 23, 2007 at 4:01 pm
The fact that Paul was employing the judgment of charity, so that he wrote working on the assumption his listeners were regenerate, unlike the Israelites in the desert, that’s what you’re missing.
The Corinthians always having a way of escape from the temptations that beset them makes perfect sense if it’s assumed the Corinthians being addressed are regenerate.
Reading the epistles as if everything said in them by their writers applies equally to regenerate and reprobate alike, and you’re gonna get all theologically whoppy-jawed.
Anne Ivy said,
August 23, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Not that some of the Israelites weren’t regenerate, naturally!
I inadvertently made it sound as if not a one of ‘em made it through the pearly gates, which is obviously wrong.
Anne Ivy said,
August 23, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Y’know, what makes this such a through-the-looking-glass experience is how debating things such as 1 Corinthians 10 with an FV’er is almost precisely like debating them with a full-orbed Arminian.
Both the FV and Arminians insist the epistles apply to both the regenerate and the reprobate, except the Arminians add that no-one’s eternal destination is set until they die as believers can fall away in the interim, and the FV’ers add that everyone’s eternal destination is set, but some believers also fall away in the interim.
Instead, I remember clear as day when I finally was given a grasp on the doctrines of sovereign grace, and what an incredible revelation it was to go back to the NT, especially, and reread it from the perspective of “This is directed to the regenerate, not the reprobate.”
Wow. THAT made a world of difference! So much that had been difficult became marvelously plain….almost embarrassingly so, actually.
Why anyone would want to go backwards by reading it through a semi-Arminian lens beats me.
Dr. Mike Kear said,
August 23, 2007 at 4:49 pm
It *seems* that the FV theological position is one of Corporate Reformed/Individual Arminian. That is, corporately we are elect and receive grace that follows certainly through to glorification, but individually, although we may be “temporarily elect” (as James Jordan states), we have no assurance that we will ultimately be a part of the corporate elect (i.e., the Church). That’s kind of scary to me.
Nicholas T Batzig said,
August 23, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Paul,
A few questions for you:
I wonder if you could explain what it means to be “born again,” or “born from above,” or “regenerate?” Can you be “unborn again?” Once God circumcises or baptizes a heart can he then turn and undo that circumcised or baptized heart bacause of sin?
At what point am I faithful enough? How many works are enough good works to keep me from “falling in the wilderness?”
Robert K. said,
August 23, 2007 at 5:48 pm
FVists are pushing the bondage of the Beast system. Follow the law for your salvation. Don’t ever begin to think you are free by the grace of God. You are a prisoner to the Beast and his ministers. Yes, follow the law for you salvation, and not even God’s perfect law at that, but the Beast version fallen man turns God’s perfect law into. Moralism and man-fearing/revering. Formalism. Whitewashed sepulchers. Hypocrisy. Tyranny. Prisoners under the mediatorial control of the priestcraft of man.
When an FVist approaches you and speaks it is like the Roman clerics: you are looking into the maw of hell.
Nicholas T Batzig said,
August 23, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Here’s a little poem by John Bunyan about the freedom of the Gospel: “Run, John, Run, the Law demands, it gives me neither feet nor hands; better news the Gospel brings it bids me fly, and gives me wings.”
james raisch said,
August 23, 2007 at 6:07 pm
reponse to post #58
Shout for joy, ye redeemed! Jesus the Redeemer saves. Thank you, Nicholas, for that refreshing Bunyan poem.
james raisch said,
August 23, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Post #58 deserves a second response.
Praise Jesus, Lover of my soul!
Anne Ivy said,
August 23, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I’d not come across that couplet from Bunyan, Nicholas. Thanks ever so!
“Better news the gospel brings…it bids me fly, and gives me wings.”
Perfect.
james raisch said,
August 23, 2007 at 7:16 pm
The paucity of posts being parceled out by the pitiful fv wizards is painfully pertinent to the prayerfully patient P&R folks. If interacting with the fv wizards (in an effort to determine if they teach heresy) takes this long on account of the waiting time the fv wizards require as they wait for the Umim and Thummim to speak, then the earth will have gone through the age of global warming (millions of years) and passed through to the other side into another ice age (and not having experienced a postmillenial period for all those millions of years, rofl) before any determination might be made. Jesus, come now and put an end to the imbecilic folly of federal visionism.
Robert K. said,
August 23, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Oh, you Bapterians…tsk, tsk…quoting Bunyan like that… Next thing you know you’ll be quoting Milton’s line about the presbyter being nothing but the new Roman priest…
And now Calvin’s gone too! His 40th sermon on Ephesians shows how a Bunyan a Calvinist could be…
Robert K. said,
August 23, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Because I don’t want to risk coming across as flippant, let me state I am a Calvinist, and know why I’m a Calvinist, because it is merely a nickname for apostolic biblical doctrine unnegotiated down to the demands of fallen man. Jesus is my Lord and Saviour and High Priest and Prophet and King. When I face eternity I put my faith solely in the work of Jesus, my Saviour and King, and zero in my own works. If I face Satan himself I’ll rely on the Holy Spirit speaking for me as my Sword and on my faith in Jesus as my shield, and nothing will I rely on that is my own. And I’ll enter the Kingdom if need be like the knight in black armour in Pilgrim’s Progress, embarrassing all the obedient and tame-slave ones sitting by the gate…
Ruben said,
August 23, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Re: #19.
Paul, I’m not at all sure about the distinction you’re trying to make between those who have temporary faith and false professors, et al. Is it not still true that these people (the baptized ones anyway) were “covenantally” *in* the body, and yet never destined for permanent inclusion? And if that is so, does not Sibbes’ metaphor sum up their position rather vigorously?
Ruben said,
August 23, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Re: #15.
Mr. Wilder, what would you feel was the role of C.S. Lewis in the development of presuppositionalism? Lewis didn’t like Barth.
Nicholas T Batzig said,
August 23, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Its interesting how encouraging Bunyan is on this point since he is a case study for the FVers on “the introspective conscience.” While it is true that Bunyan was often too scrupulous in self-examination I would like to leave this discussion with a quote from a dear friend: “You better get an introspective conscience—or your gonna go to hell.”
pduggie the brilliant said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I think the most important thing is not to read the bible as directed to the “regenerate” or the “reprobate” but to read it as directed to “you”.
“The fact that Paul was employing the judgment of charity, so that he wrote working on the assumption his listeners were regenerate, unlike the Israelites in the desert, that’s what you’re missing.”
Then it doesn’t make sense that he warns them not to fall.
Tim Wilder said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Re: 66
Lewis doesn’t come to mind as an exponent of presuppositionalism. In his The Abolition of Man he advocated a sort of natural morality that put Christianity on the same plane with various forms of paganism. He had something in common with Barth in that he found a sort of Bible within the Bible, and sought to separate the human and the divine parts. I don’t recall anything that either the Federal Vision people or Van Til have said about Lewis. Don’t know how he fits into this debate. Some Federal Vision people have shown a lot of interest in Barth.
Grover Gunn said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Re: Reason and Revelation
I am reading Richard A. Muller’s four volumes on Reformed orthodoxy. I have found some helpful material here on the relationship between reason and revelation. I also look foward to reading the new P&R book _Revelation and Reason_. Here is one quotation from Muller:
BOQ
The rationalization and intellectualization of theology into system characteristic of the orthodox or scholastic phase of Protestantism, never set the standards of scriptural revelation and rational proof on an equal par and certainly never viewed either evidential demonstration or rational necessity as the grounds of faith. Quite the contrary, the Protestant orthodox disavow evidentialism and identify theological certainty as something quite distinct from mathematical and rational or philosophical certainty. They also argue quite pointedly that reason has an instrumental function within the bounds of faith and not a magisterial function. Reason never proves faith, but only elaborates faith toward understanding. There is, moreover, underlying this traditional view of the relationship of faith and reason, an anthropology in which sin and the problematic nature of human beings plays a major role — in significant contrast to the Enlightenment rationalist assumption of an untrammeled original constitution of humanity.
Vol 1, pages141-142
EOQ
Grover Gunn
Anne said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Saying that the warnings against falling are incontrovertible proof that the “saved” can, in fact, fall away from salvation is a favorite argument of the Arminian, you doubtless realize.
Look, think of it like this. I absolutely believe in God’s utter and complete sovereignty over all His creation, down to the smallest detail.
OTOH, that doesn’t mean I don’t have to decide what to cook for dinner tomorrow night.
There are overarching truths, such as God’s sovereignty, and then there are more localized, for lack of a better word, truths, such as sitting with my feet up and reading a mystery isn’t going to get dinner cooked. The LORD may be as sovereign as sovereign can be, but that fact in no way mitigates my personal, individual responsibility to make some sort of decision regarding dinner.
Doubtless someone else will be able to explain it better than the dog’s dinner I’m making of it, but it’s perfectly reasonable that the apostle would write in a way that demonstrates both the fact that what he said was applicable only to the regenerate, i.e. those who believe in Christ (IOW, directed at the whole), plus that each listener/reader still is responsible to believe and act on that belief (IOW, directed at the individual).
As I said, I’ve probably made a mess of this explanation.
It’s actually been a few years since I got into a theological debate with an Arminian, so I’m rather rusty.
Tim Wilder said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Re: 68
““The fact that Paul was employing the judgment of charity, so that he wrote working on the assumption his listeners were regenerate, unlike the Israelites in the desert, that’s what you’re missing.””
“Then it doesn’t make sense that he warns them not to fall.”
Possibility 1) The hearers are elect (what you call decretally elect), and he is warning them against a fall that is impossible, only hypothetical, and this then makes no sense.
Possibility 2) The hearers are not elect, and he is warning them against a fall that is not only possible, but inevitable, so that the warning is futile, and this makes no sense.
Possibility 3) Some hearers are 1, and some hearers are 2, so that in each individual case it makes no sense, but by grouping them together it is easier to overlook the nonsense.
Possibility 4) The hearers are elect, and they will not fall, and part of the instrumentality that keeps them from falling is this very warning.
Possibility 5) Paul is addressing the visible church and some hearers are elect and some are not, but this warning, like the call of the gospel in the first place, acts differently on different hearers, producing faith, or not, according to God’s election.
Possibility 6) Some other interpretation that you have overlooked.
pduggie the brilliant said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:53 pm
good questions:
Born again: Coming from out of the dead family of Adam and Israel and into the new living family of the Spirit. For elect individuals, this involves secret individual vivification by the Spirit brought by Christ as well as the vivification of the public network of the person’s situation (hence, a new family)
“At what point am I faithful enough?”
The point where you repent of your dead idols and trust Christ as your savior.
“How many works are enough good works to keep me from “falling in the wilderness?””
Its not a matter of works. Its a matter of remembering and trusting God’s faithfulness when you are tempted away from God that you don’t succumb to the temptation to abandon God.
Paul warns that we should not provoke God to jealousy by flagrant and faithless idolatry and license, because that would end us up like Israel.
Anne said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Darn, Tim! Thanks.
There you go, Paul. I knew someone else would come along and do a much better job than I, though I’ll admit I didn’t expect it to be posted literally on the heels of my own comment.
I can’t believe I’m so dreadfully rusty that I couldn’t dredge up #’s 4 and 5, but there it is. Now I’m reading them the light bulb’s gone on, and a big “DUH” is whacking me on the head.
Good post! Excellent, in fact (I’m particularly taken with #2, BTW).
Nicholas T Batzig said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Paul,
I’m not jumping back into the conversation but did you just change your name to “pduggie the brilliant.” Either you are a very funny man or very arrogant. Later.
pduggie the brilliant said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I like 4 and 5. My problem if Paul was like “us”, if WE assume someone is regenerate we aren’t going to say “now I know you’re regenerate, but you should watch out or you could end up in hell.” because we’re normally not allowed to say stuff like that.
In such a case we’ve belied the “assumption” that the person is regenerate.
Beth Ellen Nagle said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I am sure “pduggie the brilliant” is all in good fun. It sure made me chuckle.
pduggie said,
August 23, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Sorry. Leftover joke from yesterday at the expense of someone who felt called to mock a blog commenter
pduggie said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:01 pm
“we have no assurance that we will ultimately be a part of the corporate elect”
Sure you do. Christ died for you. Shouldn’t you be assured by that?
pduggie said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Y’know, I can’t say I actually know enough to know if reformed theologians have claimed or not claimed whether God provides a way of escape from temptation to the reprobate as well, and its just that they fail to utilize it.
Regeneration, I would assume, is not the “way of escape” provided by God from temptation. Or is it?
Anne said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Re: #79…
Christ died for who, exactly?
Christ Chapel is, I regret to say, a firm Unlimited Atonement church, i.e. it says that Christ died for everyone, without exception.
I’m just as firm a Limited Atonement believer, saying Christ died solely for those people He will eventually welcome into glory.
The FV plays wiley-beguiled with Limited Atonement as it tries its best to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds, saying Christ died for some people, not all, but OTOH not all the people for whom He died will be in glory.
To be fair, I suppose technically one could say the FV teaches “Limited Atonement” since it doesn’t say the atonement was UNlimited in scope, and if something’s not unlimited then it is, by definition, limited, but this modified form of LA isn’t the Reformed doctrine, not by a long shot.
Anne said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Re: #80…
The way of escape from temptation is the sure and certain knowledge that if one is a believer, one is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and if one is indwelt by the Holy Spirit all necessary spiritual help is readily available so as to resist the desire to sin.
Mind, believers are lamentably inconsistent in drawing on this divine resource, so they fall into sin like autumn leaves in a windstorm.
Still, as the apostle said, the LORD invariably provides a “way of escape” if only the believer will rely upon Him. It’s there.
The weakness in the FV theory is that since it teaches one may be revealed to have been sovereignly appointed to be merely a temporary believer, and what causes the TB’s belief to be temporary is because the LORD withdraws from him, once this has occurred the TB doesn’t have this way of escape any longer. It’s not there.
Tim Wilder said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Quiz question:
Which Federal Vision leader published an article claiming that Paul had stated in a pastoral epistle that two particular members of the a congregation were decretally elect, and that therefore they should get along because they were going to have to in heaven?
pduggie said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:40 pm
“exactly”, Christ lay down his life for all the father gave to him.
But I won’t stop saying Christ died for you, Anne Ivy. Because you aren’t going to heaven unless you believe that. So someone should tell you that.
Its what I tell my kids.
And not just “awakened sinner! Christ died for you”
Anne said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:44 pm
BTW, I dunno about Pduggie the Brilliant, but I do have a lot of respect for Pduggie the Good Sport, to be taking on all comers like he has been.
And when the chips are down, “good sport” beats “brilliant”, at least in my book.
Just wanted to say….
Anne said,
August 23, 2007 at 11:49 pm
But I do believe that! Praise God!
Not because I’m exhibiting enough fruit to fill enough fruit baskets for every cabin on the Dawn Princess, but because I know Who my Redeemer is, and that He is mighty to save, and wants to save, and has promised to save all who throw themselves on His mercy.
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 24, 2007 at 12:02 am
Answer to 83
Wilson in an old Credenda article. It was on Philippians, Euodia, Syntyche, and true companion. Good article.
Daniel Kok said,
August 24, 2007 at 12:03 am
Re #83: Answer - Doug Wilson in a past edition of Credenda Agenda.
Daniel Kok said,
August 24, 2007 at 12:04 am
Oops; I posted just before Shawn but not late enough to notice it before I posted.
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 24, 2007 at 1:10 am
I don’t know if Wilson still agrees with what he wrote there (10+ years ago?). I can only speak for myself on the issue.
When I first read that article, I understood the Book of Life to be God’s secret decree - the predestined to Heaven list. I naturally assumed the warning of Revelation 22:19 to be hypothetical. I now think that The Book of Life is covenant membership. The warning against apostasy is as real as Christ’s threatening to take away the lampstands of the churches or to remove the unfruitful vine.
There is certainly and absolutely a fixed number of the redeemed, elect before all eternity, predestined to eternal glory. God knows every name on that list. That list does not increase or decrease.
But that list is not what Paul and John are talking about. They are talking about Christians, church members, the baptized, those in communion with Christ and his people. And apostasy and excommunication are a real danger for the unfaithful covenant member.
Paul and John did not create a new term or category. David speaks of the Book of Life or the Book of the Living in Psalm 69 in the context of imprecation: “Add iniquity to their iniquity, and let them not come into Your righteousnes. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.”
Does any anti-FVer think that Paul was infallibly declaring that his fellow laborers were predestined to Heaven? Regardless of what they did or believed? Did they still have to make their calling and election sure? Did the warnings in the epistles apply to them?
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 24, 2007 at 1:38 am
On the covenantal ordo.
Rom 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises.
These verses (9: 1-13) use the language of salvation to describe unregenerate covenant members. The charity of judgment position makes no sense here, since Paul is condemning Israel (in the flesh). Lane, you said that Wilkins creates a system that must speak of two kinds of participation - covenantal and decreetal. But that is exactly what Paul says! “For they are not all Israel (covenantal and decreetal) who are of Israel (covenantal).
There are other verses where the charity of judgment will not work because of the condemnation contained in the same scripture. 2Pe 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 1Cor 7:14 “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” The charity of judgment doesn’t work in these passages.
Anne said,
August 24, 2007 at 7:40 am
“Does any anti-FVer think that Paul was infallibly declaring that his fellow laborers were predestined to Heaven? Regardless of what they did or believed?”
I shouldn’t think so. That would effectively negate the whole basis for the “judgment of charity”, would it not?
Which I realize you argue against in #91, but since anti-FV’ers do hold to the judgment of charity, then obviously the “was Paul infallibly declaring, etc. etc.” question is a little illogical.
Darn it, this stuff just isn’t especially complicated or esoteric. Simple case in point: surely we all agree the LORD is sovereign over when people appear on the planet and when they’re dispatched off of it, right? Our days are numbered from before the foundation of the earth and all that?
Fine.
So. Who here uses that sure and certain fact to justify running red lights with impunity? Or letting their toddlers play outside without supervision?
Since our days are numbered from before the foundation of the earth, what possible difference can safety measures make? Aren’t we proving we do NOT, in fact, believe the LORD is sovereign and that our - and our children’s - days are numbered from before the foundation of the earth whenever we take elementary precautions such as obeying traffic rules, carefully monitoring our children, exercising, eating prudently, locking our doors, and so on and so on?
It’s the same as the “what’s the point of the warnings unless believers can really, really fall away” argument.
This stuff is supposed to be a problem for Arminians, not Calvinists, for pity’s sake.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 24, 2007 at 7:43 am
Tim W.
I must again protest your distorted portrait of Van Til. ‘Plagiarizing Barth’ !! Good grief, CVT was accused of alot of things in his life, but that was not one of them! He was one of Barth’s fiercest critic, and at least Barth knew who VT was- to my knowledge he was totally unaware of Gordon Clark and made no mention of him. CVT has certaintly suffered at the hands of many who claim to be his disciples. Even so good a student of CVT as the late Greg Bahnsen was amazed when I showed him this quote from CVT’s ‘Common Grace And The Gospel’(P&R,1974), “Elsewhwere I have expressed disagreement with its(Old Princeton) ‘apologetics’. In this I was following Kuyper. But never have I expressed a basis difference with its theology or its basic epistemology.”(p.155). Bahnsen was under the mistaken assumption that CVT and Warfield did have very different epistemologies. By the way, here is another reason why CVT would have run away from the Fderal Vision crowd- he emphatically sided with the substance of the Old Princeton theology-something the FV seems to take delight in opposing every chance they get. Added to this is the well known fact that CVT publically took pains to distance himself from the theonomy crowd while he was still living. Finally, it is pure barn yard poop to think that CVT would stand behind the position that Norman Shepherd has come to occupy,i.e.denying the CoW and the AOoC. and I call as my first witness to support my case, Richard Gaffin.
Beth Ellen Nagle said,
August 24, 2007 at 8:01 am
Mr. Wilder, in #15 I am wondering if you can elaborate what are the problems with presuppositionalism.
Tim Wilder said,
August 24, 2007 at 8:15 am
I still think that Alvin Plantinga was right on the money. I went to hear him give his paper on Reformed Epistemology contrasting the approach to reason of Bavinck and Barth. Afterward I asked him whether he would classify Van Til with Bavinck or Barth. Without hesitation he replied, “With Barth.”
I hope John Hare publishes his paper “Kant, Barth, and the Predisposition to Good” where he gets into Barth and Van Til’s shared misreading of Kant.
pduggan said,
August 24, 2007 at 8:21 am
“Lane, you said that Wilkins creates a system that must speak of two kinds of participation - covenantal and decreetal. But that is exactly what Paul says! “For they are not all Israel (covenantal and decreetal) who are of Israel (covenantal)”
But for Lane and others, that’s Paul’s way of saying they are not REALLY israel who are MERELY NAMED israel.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 24, 2007 at 8:25 am
Tim
Yes, and Plantinga gave a paper at BYU and thought the Mormons were ‘fine Christians’. After he was brought up to speed on the subject, he said….that
he didn’t know, huh… well he…he kinda …may have…spoke, huh..didn’t know what he was talking about.
Tim Wilder said,
August 24, 2007 at 8:45 am
Re: 94
“the problems with presuppositionalism”
Nobody knows what it for one thing. Van Tillians say they are presuppositionalists. Clarkians say that Vantillians are not presuppositionalists because Van Til had a proof for the existence of God. Schaeffer talked about presuppositions, but plenty of people–Vantillians especially–deny that Schaeffer was a presuppositionalist. These days people go around giving talks on whether Van Til, or Schaeffer, depending on what camp the are in, was the first post-modernist, with presuppositionalism being drawn into the orbit of deconstruction, anti-realism, and pomo thinking in general.
Meanwhile, outside the presuppositional camp per se we see the Reformed Epistemology thinkers with their talk about “properly basic beliefs”. Who do they look to as the first exponent of this presuppositional-resembling way of thinking? None other than Thomas Reid. Yet it is exactly Reid and his influence in the Princeton tradition that the Vantiallian claim to be the humanistic thinking that their hero overthrew, at last making a Christian starting point for thought! Federal Vision people, for some reason, are especially vehement against Reid. (For more on Reid see some articles in recent years by David Estrada in Christianity & Society, a free download from http://www.kuyper.org)
But step back a bit and look at this presuppositional stuff in historical perspective. It is really part of the tail end of the development of post-Kantian German thought. After Kant and his Critique of Pure Reason we find one German after another claiming that he is going further, making a deeper critique than anyone before him of the hidden foundations of thought. Kierkegaard had great fun lampooning these Germans, and the theologians who imitated them, who were always “going further”.
Then comes Dooyeweird, with his New Critique of Theoretical Thought which he starts off with the boast that he is the one who is really going further and getting at the true pressupositional nature of thinking.
Presuppositionism, as practiced in the apologetics wars is more of this same “going further” and claiming to grasp the true presuppositional structure. Then unbelieving thought is critiqued by ascribing to it alleged presuppositions where are claimed to be in unresolvable dialectical conflict. As practiced by Van Til, this meant misreading various thinkers, such as Kant, Barth, etc. and then claiming to find in them certain abstract dialectical conflicts between metaphysical categories he never really defined. No one took this seriously except Van Til and his students.
Now that we are further down the path of “going further” with its dissolution into post-modernism, presuppositionalism looks like a matter of going less far into presuppositions then where we are today.
I should add that so far from being a genuine break, post-modernism is carrying though a lot of the modern critical project to the end of introducing romanticism as they make rationality break down. It is not post-modern at all.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 24, 2007 at 8:56 am
Horsefeathers Tim. It would be helpful if you were willing to read CVT without looking at him cross-eyed through the lenses of John Robbins. Having known both CVT and Gordon Clark ( they were both guests in my home). I took CVT to hear Clark lecture at the old Faith theological seminary in 1980. They were very polite and perfect gentlemen towards each other. Clark told me he highly respected CVT and that during his trial CVT treated him with respect and courtesy. CVT likewise spoke highly of Clark, saying that Clark had the finest grasp of the history of Western philosophy of anyone he had ever met.
Tim Wilder said,
August 24, 2007 at 9:07 am
“It would be helpful if you were willing to read CVT without looking at him cross-eyed through the lenses of John Robbins.”
Why does everyone assume that is someone is not a Van Til cultist he is a Clark cultist?
Today Vantillianism and Clarkianism are tiny philosophical cults, fifty years out of touch with contemporary thought. The reason there is no good critique of either is that no one competent to do one wants to waste the time.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 24, 2007 at 9:09 am
Tim
I beg to differ, and will let it go at that.
Beth Ellen Nagle said,
August 24, 2007 at 9:25 am
#98 Thanks for this. You make some interesting observations here to consider.
Beth Ellen Nagle said,
August 24, 2007 at 9:29 am
#93 I read a book recently that I think would agree with Mr. Johnson here. It is called_B.B. Warfield and Right Reason: The Clarity of General Revelation and Function of Apologetics by Owen Anderson. I think this little book addresses some key concerns and issues. If I have time I will find some pertinent quotes.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 24, 2007 at 9:37 am
Beth
The contributions by Paul Helseth in the book I edited on Warfield also addresses this in a very convincing fashion. Lane tells me he will return to assessing this sometime in the near future.
Beth Ellen Nagle said,
August 24, 2007 at 9:46 am
Mr. Johnson, thanks. I have the book and just did not get around to studying it yet. I think it is an important topic. Look forward to Lane’s discussion on it.
Geoff said,
August 24, 2007 at 10:34 am
They wanted to give an objective basis for assurance originally. But what they gave with one hand (visible church) they must take away with the other (everyone knows not everyone in the visible church will be saved).
David Kear said,
August 24, 2007 at 1:46 pm
G.L.W. Johnson,
This is late in the conversation but I wanted to thank you for the proper positioning of Van Till in (or rather, out of) this mess. I was growing weary of the mischaracterizations have been written about his theological perspective.
Thanks,
David Kear (not to be confused with Dr. Kear, he’s my brother)
Ruben said,
August 24, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Re: #69
Mr. Wilder, I brought Lewis up not only because he expressed dismay over Barth but also because Doug Wilson said that after he published a book some reviewer commended it as Van Tillian, and Wilson thought that he would have to check out this Van Til character –he has gotten his method from Lewis. The Credenda Agenda devoted to Lewis a while back also said that he used presuppositional apologetics when the other side wouldn’t behave.
Tim Wilder said,
August 24, 2007 at 2:21 pm
“The Credenda Agenda devoted to Lewis a while back also said that he used presuppositional apologetics when the other side wouldn’t behave.”
Presuppositional or ad hominem (attacking their personal inconsistency)?
Ruben said,
August 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Re. #109. Well, they called it presuppositional. I suppose it was a reference to the sort of thing Lewis does in Miracles and elsewhere, which Barfield summarized thus: “Over and over again, but each time in slightly different language, he pointed out that, as soon as that foundation is clearly affirmed, instead of being cloudily assumed, it undermines itself. You cannot prove that there is no such thing as proof, or (without imbecility) argue that argument is merely a biological process. You cannot hold it true that there is no such thing as truth.”
Tim Wilder said,
August 24, 2007 at 10:55 pm
What the last twenty years have shown, I think, is that a term such as “presuppositional” does not really do all that much in delineating a point of view. Witness the Federal Vision as one example where someone like Jordan says it is pure Vantillianism, and yet we see all sorts of dabbling with post-modernism and what-not. It is not at all clear to me that these FV guys would agree with each other on philosophy. Various types of foundationalism, internalism, externalism and similar terminology is used today to make distinctions that were simply not laid out in the old appologetics wars over presuppositionalism. Which of the options are Vantillian or antivantillian? Does it even make sense to ask? It is new wine in old wineskins.
Ruben said,
August 25, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Thanks, Mr. Wilder. That clears some things up.
Grover Gunn said,
August 25, 2007 at 5:31 pm
On the subject of presuppositionalism, allow me to share two more quotations from vol. 1 of Richard Muller’s four volume work on Reformed orthodoxy:
BOQ
Since, moreover, it is of the very nature of a first principle that it is most certain, indemonstrable or immediately evident, and never a postulate or hypothesis, the Reformed orthodox identification of Scripture as the principium cognoscendi unicum of theology involves the assumption that the biblical norm cannot be rationally or empirically verified and, indeed, need not be — and that its authority is known in and through its self-authenticating character. Thus, as noted earlier, Turretin can state that theology does not rest on evidence or reason.
1.436-437
EOQ
BOQ
In the seventeenth century, under the impact of rationalism and particularly in the wake of the seemingly constructive and theologically congenial rationalism of Leibniz and Wolff, a considerable number of the late scholastic systems elevate reason from an ancillary to a principal status. … This affirmation of reason as principium congnoscendi interum constitutes a major departure from the perspective of the Reformers and the Protestant scholastics of the seventeenth century and, when conjoined with the rationalist definition of truth as clara et distincta perceptio, clear and distinct perception, it had the tendency to obscure not only the role of faith in theology but the underlying epistemological vision of Reformed theology that the human mind, unless aided by grace and presented with supernatural revelation, is incapable of knowing the deepest truth of God.
1.443
EOQ
Grover Gunn
Tim Wilder said,
August 25, 2007 at 6:15 pm
“In the seventeenth century, under the impact of rationalism and particularly in the wake of the seemingly constructive and theologically congenial rationalism of Leibniz and Wolff, a considerable number of the late scholastic systems elevate reason from an ancillary to a principal status.”
This is what Richard Hooker was trying to do in the late 1500s and early 1600s, as a third way between Rome (tradition and authoritarianism), and Puritanism (Biblicism). Interesting the Hooker appeals to some FV people such as Rich Lusk.
Of course, if you can prove that Reformed thought was presuppositional, the Van Til camp will have to stop claiming the invention of it by Van Til made him the greatest Christian philosopher ever.
But I think you will find that that issue of the place of reason in connection with the authority of Scripture was already in play around 1600 in the controvercies between the Puritans and the smells, bells and symbols guys. Today it is the smells, bells and symbols people (the FV) who claim to oppose reason.
Grover Gunn said,
August 25, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Yes, Tim, that is what fascinates me. I am finding some of these controversies which I considered modern, in this study of sixteenth and seventeenth Reformed orthodoxy. I did not expect that. I am encouraged to learn how much I am in agreement with classic Reformed orthodoxy and also how much I have to learn from it.
May God bless!
Grover Gunn
Ruben said,
August 25, 2007 at 7:51 pm
That is interesting Mr. Gunn. According to Dr. Muller, then, Berkhof has departed from Protestant Scholasticism, as evidenced in the following quotations from his Introduction to Systematic Theology
Robert K. said,
August 25, 2007 at 8:51 pm
From this street Calvinist’s view presuppositionalists are impressive the first time you hear then debate an atheist, but less so by degree the more you realize they aren’t doing what is the only thing that can change a heart: proclaiming the Word of God and the foolishness of the Gospel. Only the Word and the Spirit can change a heart. What they mostly *are* doing is giving a person another hook to hang their vanity on. From ‘I am in control’ vain intellectual atheist to ‘I am in control’ vain intellectual Christian.
Terry W. West said,
August 25, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Robert K,
So that’s what you’ve been doing, you’ve been just proclaiming the gospel here on this blog. Thank you for making this so clear, for I was having a hard time recognizing the gospel through all the hateful and vicious rhetoric.
Terry
Grover Gunn said,
August 25, 2007 at 10:44 pm
#116
On page 246 of Richard A. Muller’s _Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms_, he says that according to Protestant scholasticism, the “principium cognoscendi externum” (the external foundation or principle of knowing) is the written Word of God, and the “principium cognoscendi internum” (the internal foundation or principle of knowing) is “the internal principle of faith which knows the external Word and answers its call, i.e., faith resting on the testimony of the Spirit.” It is indeed interesting that Dr. Berkhof identifies the internal foundation of knowing as reason instead of saving faith. I normally agree with Dr. Berkhof, and I greatly value his Systematic Theology.
Allow me to share some more quotations from volume 1 of the four volume work on Refomed scholastic orthodoxy:
BOQs
Among the Wolffian theologians and philosophers of the eighteenth century, however, reason was viewed as principium cognoscendi theologiae and, as a result, natural theology could be viewed as the basic theology upon which a system could be built and to which certain revealed but rationally explicable data could be added. This identification of reason as a foundation of theology becomes the normative view of eighteenth-century Reformed writers …
1.306
The presence of this rationalistic perspective in the eighteenth-century theology, therefore, marks the end of genuine Reformed orthodoxy and its identification of Scripture alone as principium cognoscendi theologiae with reason as an instrument or ancilla. One might also conclude that this shift in perspective also marks the end of the influence of the medieval scholastic model as well.
1.307
Just as arithmetic, geometry and physics have first principles, so does theology: there must be a “true, immediate, utterly necessary prior and knowable” principle that is the “cause of all doctrines in the Christian religion.” … principia are necessary and immutably true and must be known per se as both immediate and indemonstrable. …the principia of any given discipline must be identified as a principium essendi, literally a “principle of being” or essential foundation — and a principium cognoscendi, a “principle of knowing” or cognitive foundation: the former is necessary for the existence of the discipline, the latter for knowledge of it.
1.431
The classical philosophical language of principia was appropriated by the Reformed orthodox at a time and in a context where, on several fronts, this conceptual structure, not identifiable in the thought of the earlier Reformers, served the needs both of the Reformation sense of the priority of Scripture and the Reformation assumptions concerning the ancillary status of philosophy and the weakness of human reason. By defining both Scripture and God as principial in the strictest sense — namely as true, immediate, necessary, and knowable, or alternatively, as both self-evident and indemonstrable — the early orthodox asserted the priority of Scripture over tradition and reason and gave conceptual status to the notion of its self-authenticating character in response to both Roman polemicists and philosophical skeptics of the era. So also with God: if God is principial, his existence and foundational status in Christian theology is affirmed as more basic even than demonstration — against the skeptics of the time, whether Roman (like Charron) or classicist (like Bodin).
1.432
EOQs
I have more, but I don’t think blogs are best suited for long quotations. I would urge everyone who loves deep theology to get this four volume set. I think it used to cost around $200, but I got mine for less than $100. If that is still too much to spend, I would recommend getting Dr. Muller’s dictrionary mentioned above.
May God bless!
Grover Gunn
Robert K. said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:06 pm
>>”Robert K, So that’s what you’ve been doing, you’ve been just proclaiming the gospel here on this blog. Thank you for making this so clear, for I was having a hard time recognizing the gospel through all the hateful and vicious rhetoric. Terry”
Once we break the pride of the false teachers then we’ll evangelize them. Patience, patience…
Robert K. said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Thank you for those extracts, Mr. Gunn. Even with all the voices saying “read these books!” actually reading excerpts sells them more…
Ruben said,
August 26, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I’m glad to report that I own the set, although there’s a couple thousand miles between me and it