Apostasy
October 3, 2007 at 11:13 am (Federal Vision)
Wilson might have a tad more free time now that the debate at DRC is over. Not that he is behind or anything. I merely mention it because I have waited until that debate is over before posting any further reviews of chapters of RINE.
One remaining issue needs addressing from Wilson’s posts. And that is the question of whether churches that do not have justification by faith alone taught in them are apostate or merely corrupt. According to Wilson’s definitions of these terms, an apostate church is one that has had its branch completely cut out of the tree, whereas a corrupt church is a branch that has a few scrawny olives on it. The question, then, is whether or not a church has to have justification by faith correct in order to be a true church. I asserted that a church that gets justification wrong is apostate, not merely corrupt. As Wilson has pointed out, this statement needs a bit of qualification. Here’s how I would qualify it. It is possible for a church to teach justification by faith without using those exact words. A church that teaches that our sins are forgiven because of Christ’s sacrifice is certainly on the right track. They might even say that our right to eternal life is dependent on Christ and not on ourselves. A church that teaches this is not necessarily apostate. However, it must be added to this that it is still possible for such a church to be apostate, if they insist, for instance, that the righteousness of Christ becomes ours only by infusion, and not by imputation. The truth, of course, is that it is both. We get the imputed righteousness of Christ in justification, and the infused righteousness of Christ in sanctification.
That being said, I will now move on to chapter 15 of RINE, which concerns apostasy. Wilson starts by asserting that apostasy is a real sin that occurs in real time (p. 132). He further asserts that such an apostate falls away from Christ and from grace. He qualifies this by saying that it is baptism from which he falls. However, he still asserts that there was a “reality” to what the apostate experienced. The John 15 analogy finds its way in here with DW asserting that the apostate had real sap but no fruit.
Wilson objects to the hypothetical view of the warnings, arguing that if apostasy cannot happen to the elect, and the warnings are hypothetical, then the fact of the warnings being in Scripture would be a bit like erecting a “beware of the cliff” sign in the middle of Kansas. Let me interact with this a bit. My view is that the warnings are put there in Scripture both to heighten the condemnation of those who fall away from the visible church, and as being part of the means by which the elect are preserved. This is something which virtually all FV writers miss. The choice is usually presented by them as being between viewing them as hypothetical and therefore useless for the elect, or real, and therefore the possibility of apostasy is also real, even for the elect (speaking from a human perspective, of course: no one is saying that the decretally elect can fall away from God’s perspective). But they leave out the third possibility: the warnings are the very means God uses to keep the elect from falling away. This negates the possibility that the warnings are put there hypothetically and therefore uselessly. To assert that any Reformed author has said so is an illogical extension of that Reformed person’s argument. The presence of a warning does not necessarily mean that there will be any who fall into that category. For instance, take the sign “all tresspassers will be prosecuted.” Does that sign imply that there will in fact be tresspassers of that sign and that property? Isn’t the whole purpose of that sign to prevent tresspassing? The farmer puts it up in the hope that the category of tresspassers will be a null set. The problem here is that the FV has been operating with Aristotelian logic categories, which do not allow for the null set. Boolean categories are necessary for understanding this logic. What this means is that it is possible to talk about a set of people without there actually being any instances of that set. This answers the question of what use a warning has for an elect person. The null set is that of apostatized decretally elect persons. There are no instances of this. But the very warning prevents that from happening.
What about people who fall away? What can we say about them? What do they fall away from? Indeed, as many FV writers have said, this is the question of the FV. My question is this, for Wilson: do the people who fall away have any of the ordo salutis blessings of salvation? Are they justified, adopted, sanctified (leave Hebrews 10 out of it for now)? Wilson seems to be comfortable saying that they left Christ and grace. But what does that mean in terms of specifics? Do they participate in justification, just not the same way as the elect do? Or do they not have any of the ordo salutis benefits? This is the question that the critics have, and have never gotten a straight answer on. The problem here is that the ordo salutis is an all or nothing deal. You cannot force apart piecemeal the various benefits of the ordo and say that someone can one of them without getting all of them. Christ is undivided, as Calvin would say. We either get all of Christ or none of Christ. To say that we have any ordo salutis benefits, but then lose them, is Arminian, no matter what the proponent of said view might say about the decretally elect. I’m not necessarily accusing Wilson of Arminianism here. I am merely pointing out what his answer should be.
Lastly, and this is something that the FV writers fall woefully short on, is the question of the judgment of charity. It is casually and scornfully dismissed by many FV advocates as an explanation of why Paul writes the way he does to the church. But the judgment of charity explains this: why it is that Paul can speak to the entire visible church while using terms that apply only to the elect. By the way, it is usually asserted by FV authors that the judgment of charity means that Paul is not addressing the whole church. Nothing can be further from the truth. We do not know who is elect and who is not. Paul addresses the whole visible church, assuming that all the members are elect, since he is human. That being said, the effect of Paul’s words on the church for the elect are positive. They will assimilate Paul’s teaching and use it for their own benefit. The non-elect will ignore it to their greater condemnation. What, pray, is deficient about such an understanding of Paul’s way of writing? The method of several FV writers has been to ignore this possibility completely, or dismiss it with a casual “I’m not convinced,” (as Wilkins has), and then proceed to redefine every term in the Reformed ordo salutis on the basis of his understanding of Paul. The FV has not even begun to prove that the judgment of charity argument is untenable. They merely assert it.
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 11:45 am
“stop standing (or don’t go) in the middle of the street or you’ll get hit by a car”
real warning: cars do go down the street and the person could get hit in the middle.
hypothetical warning: there are concrete barriers at both ends of the street, and though cars could in fact go down “streets”. they can’t come down this one
How God uses the real warning: The elect believe the warning is real, and heed it, therefore keeping them from being hit.
greenbaggins said,
October 3, 2007 at 11:48 am
Paul, you are equivocating on the word “real.” Is it possible for the elect to fall away or not? Do you mean real in the sense that the elect could in fact fall away, or do you mean real in the sense that the non-elect will in fact fall away?
Your analogy about the street is not germane, since the question is not about outside influence (the cars going or not going down the street), but about what the person who is contemplating crossing the street will in fact do.
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 11:49 am
1 Corinthians 10 warns the church about “trespassers” by pointing out a pile of corpses littering the highway by the sign. How does that fit?
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 11:51 am
Are the elect capable of falling away?
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 11:51 am
“Is it possible for the elect to fall away”
no
magma2 said,
October 3, 2007 at 1:43 pm
My question is this, for Wilson: do the people who fall away have any of the ordo salutis blessings of salvation? Are they justified, adopted, sanctified (leave Hebrews 10 out of it for now)? Wilson seems to be comfortable saying that they left Christ and grace. But what does that mean in terms of specifics?
If nothing else you are tenacious to a fault. You’ve been asking this same question for as long as I’ve been commenting on this blog and probably longer.
My answer is; you will never get a straight answer. But why do you need one? Wilson makes it crystal clear in RINE that elect and non-elect are brought into the same relationship with Christ, even if only “for a time,” via the waters of baptism and the mumblings of a preistling. I have to think Wilson must be wondering if he has to draw you a picture by now.
FWIW, he (they) are not going to concede the question in the terms you want, ever. That would be akin to them placing a billboard on the road to Moscow saying, “Moscow, Idaho - Home of the Heretical and Apostate Christ’s Church.”
Talking about the vine and branches reminds me of debating James with Romanists. No matter how many times you explain that the context demands that James is discussing how we might identify false brothers or nominal Christians (categories Wilson denies for the most irrational and silly reasons), and he is not teaching that faith plus works justify, they’ll keep insisting things like “dead faith” in order to be dead must have first been alive, never grasping that a feigned faith is no real faith at all. Word pictures and parables are lost on those apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit.
Professing to be a Christian doesn’t make one a Christian any more than being baptized makes one a Christian. Those who cut away are not the elect and never were, but are those who appear to be, but are not Christians — the same folks James was dealing with.
Sam Steinmann said,
October 3, 2007 at 1:55 pm
I’m still not convinced that “the elect” is a useful category.
It seems to me that most of the Scripture warnings are “let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” Yes, there is an elect, known of God before the foundation of the world; yes, God will justify and sanctify and preserve his elect; but we don’t know and can’t know who the elect are, and can’t know with certainty whether we’re part of it. The judgment of charity says that everyone who is walking with Christ as part of the local visible church is part of the elect, but that’s only true on average.
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 3:04 pm
“and can’t know with certainty whether we’re part of it. ”
There would be little dispute about the FV if everyone believed that.
Sam Steinmann said,
October 3, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Wouldn’t “we can’t know with certainty whether we are part of the elect” follow from WCF XVIII?
Unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation….Assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith but that a true believer may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it….True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted
Sam Steinmann said,
October 3, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Just to make sure it’s absolutely clear to everyone. I’m not part of the FV; I don’t identify as Reformed, but as Anabaptist.
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 3:22 pm
You’d *think* that, wouldn’t you?
Dr. Mike Kear said,
October 3, 2007 at 3:39 pm
If the elect can fall away, then the term “elect” has lost it’s Reformed meaning. It must go into the scrap heap of formerly useful terms like “evangelical,” and, if FV continues to get a pass, “Reformed.”
jared said,
October 3, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Lane,
1. The problem with your “third option” as far as the warnings go is two-fold. First, if the warnings are meant to prevent Christians from falling away, then they are largely failing; Christians fall away all the time. Scripture speaks to the visible church and the invisible church and you are proposing that the warnings are what prevent the invisible church from falling away? I’m sure you don’t mean that the way it comes across in this post, for surely it is the faithfulness of God that actually prevents the invisible church from falling. Second, if, as you say, the warnings are meant to prevent the invisible church from falling away, what does that mean for us? Since only God knows who is in the invisible church, how useful or practical are warnings for us in the visible church? I say this because everyone in the visible church believes they are also in the invisible church and this is simply not true. Will you still be in the visible church in 20 years? I hope so and I’m sure you will emphatically affirm so, but Peter practically swore he would never deny Jesus and less than 24 hours later he did so three times. Obviously Peter was restored, but will you be? Will I be? I think this is the question FV adresses.
2. What does it matter what the non-elect loses in his falling away? Why is that so important beyond merely squable over words (which Paul tells us not to do)? The fact is they fall away and lose something, otherwise it wouldn’t be a falling. How is knowing specifically what they lose of any importance, pastorally or theologically? Moreover, how are we supposed to figure out or know what they lose if (1) Scripture doesn’t explicitly tell us and (2) we don’t/can’t read hearts the way God does?
3. I don’t see how the judgment of charity arguement affects FV at all, at least on this point. FV says the non-elect will fall away. How? I imagine one of the contributing factors is ignoring the warnings in Scripture. Even if the non-elect read them they won’t heed them. But the elect will, and in doing so do they aid their security? Sure they do. Do they actually secure themselves in doing so? No, that’s God’s work.
Dave Rockwell said,
October 3, 2007 at 4:44 pm
(The Lord says,) “For I will pardon those whom I preserve.” Jer. 50:20d
Who pardons sin? God
Who preserves us and keeps us from falling? God
Result? Assurance of salvation based on the truth of God’s Word and living a life of gratitude to Him.
I am reminded of a conversation I once had with my dad. I asked him if he had ever contemplated divorcing my mom. His answer is priceless. He said that the word “divorce” was never in his vocabulary and therefore, it never once entered his mind. They were married for 55 years until his homegoing.
For those who are truly born again by the Spirit, apostasy need not even be a part of our vocabulary nor enter our minds. To live in fear of apostasy is to take our eyes, hearts, and minds off of the Word of God. Fear is from the devil, not from God and it only belongs to the children of the devil. For a pastor to preach that one must be faithful and persevere in good works to be ultimately saved is to be a preacher straight from hell. It is a flat out denial of God’s Word and an insult to His character. And, its purpose is only to instill fear and submission to unworthy authorities.
Pardon for sin and a peace that endureth,
Thine own dear presence to cheer and to guide;
Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow,
blessings all mine and ten thousand beside!
Great is Thy faithfulness! Great is Thy faithfulness!
Morning by morning, new mercies I see;
All I have needed Thy hand hath provided (NOT MY HAND);
Great is Thy faithfulness, Lord unto me.
David Gadbois said,
October 3, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Lane,
There is also a failure to distinguish how the content of a message (such as a warning) applies to the audience in different ways.
Take your “trespassers will be prosecuted.” If I am walking innocently by the property and read this sign, does it “apply” to me? In a sense, yes, in another, no. If I never trespass, then I am not a trespasser and therefore can never come under the consequences of the warning (being prosecuted). Maybe I never even have the *ability* to trespass, because perhaps I a crippled or something. Then in an even stronger sense it does not apply to me. But still in some sense it does apply to me - but only in a counterfactual sense. *If* I (or anyone else) were to trespass, then we would be prosecuted.
The content of the message is a simple conditional statement - it does not comment on the ontological state of the audience. It does not imply that they are trespassers, or even that they *can* be trespassers. Perhaps a certain subset of the audience *can* be or is, but by itself it does not assume anything about a particular audience.
And this is where FV constantly goes wrong - they get confused because they do not separate the epistemological question from the metaphysical issue. Saying that tresspassers are prosecuted or that members of the visible church who apostacize fall away from grace is a metaphysical statement. Whether I, somebody else, or any particular subset within the visible church are apostate, can apostacize, or are more susceptible to apostacizing (in Lane’s analogy, whether or not I am a trespasser or can trespass the property) is an epistmeological issue. WCF and classical Reformed ST deals with this under the heading of “Assurance,” not under the headings of applied redemption (the ordo salutis). The former deals with the sinner’s subjective awareness of his individual salvation, whereas the latter deals with objective realities of the saved sinner generically.
FV smears these issues together and can’t tell up from down.
Kyle said,
October 3, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Sam,
Wouldn’t “we can’t know with certainty whether we are part of the elect” follow from WCF XVIII?
Only if you ignore this part: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.
Dave Rockwell said,
October 3, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Again, to make the statement that a true believer can apostasize and fall away, is to make God out to be a liar. That He does not have the ability to preserve us. If He can’t preserve us - keep us from falling - then most likely He can not fully forgive us or pardon our sin completely. Earlier in the verse, the Lord says, “In those days and in that time, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought, but there shall be none; and the sins of Judah; but they shall not be found;…
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Are there deceptions that could deceive the elect if it were possible?
reformedmusings said,
October 3, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Nice job, Lane.
I’ve said this repeatedly on my blog: If FV is right and there is a “covenantally elect” who have real justification, adoption, sanctification, and forgiveness of sins per Wilkins (et al), then God must be a liar in at least two places: first is Rom 8:29-30 where He says that all whom He justifies He glorifies; second in Phil 1:6 when He says that He will finish the good work He started. We can all add more later, but I’ve never seen an FV answer to just these two.
Michael Saville said,
October 3, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Lane, the author of Hebrews (a letter that repeatedly warns against apostasy) tells the recipients of the letter that “God is treating you as sons” (Hebrews 12:7). Now, let’s say (hypothetically) that some of the recipients of the letter ignored it’s warnings and did indeed apostatize. Was the statement “God is treating you as sons” untrue for those members of the church that later apostatized? Do you understand this in terms of “judgment of charity?” Or is there some way in which the phase “God is treating you as sons” truly applied to the whole body of Christians who received the letter?
jared said,
October 3, 2007 at 11:36 pm
reformedmusings,
Why does the Vinedresser need to cut the unfruitful branches out if they aren’t really connected to the Vine? No FVist is denying Romans 8:29-30 or Phil 1:6. What you (and seemingly Lane) aren’t allowing for is a distinction between covenantally elect and decretally elect (a distinction at least Wilson has made more times than I care to count). What you (and seemingly Lane) are confusing are the real benefits a non-elect member of the covenant has simply by virtue of being in the covenant and the real benefits an elect member of the covenant has for exactly the same reason. Are these real benefits of the same quantity and quality? Quantity, probably not, but maybe; why should this matter? Quality, obviously not lest there be no falling away of the non-elect. What’s difficult about this? The whole NT from Jesus to John say “Work it out”, the Reformed tradition (i.e. the WS) says “Work it out” because if you don’t, well, we all know the end of that story.
I’m really, really (and honestly) struggling with why this is so difficult for FV critics. Is the non-elect covenant member justified in the same way/sense/meaning as the elect covenant member? (1) YES, because they are both visible members of the one body (the Church) and that body is/will be justified, glorified, etc.. (2) NO, because one of them is not elect and won’t remain in the body. As Lane says in this post, the elect see the warnings and pay attention, the non-elect either don’t see or see and don’t pay attention (as is their lot). How do their respective eternal destinations have anything whatsoever to do with their current status as covenant members and all of the “goodies” that come with such membership?
The non-elect won’t finish the race and receive the prize; that, however, doesn’t mean or imply that the prize is not a reality in their estimation. They are “entitled” to the prize as much as the elect are because they’re running, even in the same/right direction! But they lack the endurance and stamina of the elect, who will receive the prize. So, as the analogy goes, non-elect and elect runners are striving for the same prize and are promised the same prize upon finishing the race. On this scheme you can’t point to the non-elect and say to him “You’re not a runner!” because clearly you are mistaken. He’s sweating just like you are and he’s going to need water just like you and he will even drink it as you do; at this juncture he’s just as much a runner as you are (and should be treated as such too!). But one day he will stop and you will continue; he will, in effect, “lose” the prize even as you have obtained it.
It seems as though your letting speculation about what cannot be known by man inform your view(s) of what can be known. How do you know if you’re elect? Well, you “just know”, right? The same way you “know” you’re in love with your wife. That “knowledge” (I don’t know if it can be properly called that) affects who you are and what you do, doesn’t it? You “live a life worthy of that to which you have been called” and that’s one of the “indicators” of being elect. Someone might ask you (as I above asked) “How do you know you’ll be in the same place 20 years from now?” to which you might very well respond “Well, I’m here now aren’t I? Why should it be any different 20 years from now?” Again, as I mentioned above, I imagine Peter had this same “knowledge” about denying Jesus and look where it got him. Plenty of people will cry “Lord, Lord” and they will be turned away. I think one of the things I like about FV is that it’s realistic. Life is going to kick you in the face every so often and right now you and I will respond the same way: by getting back up and moving on; but in 20 years maybe one of us won’t. FV doesn’t question whether one can be assured or not, because that isn’t the issue; obviously Scripture makes explicit provision for assurance (as you have pointed out). What the FV questions, from my vantage on this issue anyway, is holding on to our assurance as our assurance rather than holding on to the gospel. Does that make sense?
Robert K. said,
October 4, 2007 at 12:26 am
Jared, you’re perplexity is no different from the perplexity of Arminians or Roman Catholic apologists or any category of liberal theologians in general when faced with the foolishness of the Gospel. Man demands to be in control. God operates differently.
Daniel Kok said,
October 4, 2007 at 12:44 am
Re #20. No. There is an assumption not an actually reality (of sonship) for all covenant members.
We see this is in Hebrews 6:9 “But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner.”
And Hebrews 10:39 “But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.”
Both of these texts are pertinent to the issue not only because they are in the book which you are quoting but also because they are delivered in the context of apostasy.
Or simply look at the example of Isaac and Ishmael. Galatians 4:29ff. Both are sons of the covenant but they are not disciplined in the same manner for only one is born of the Spirit.
Reed DePace said,
October 4, 2007 at 6:17 am
Ref. 21 and original post:
Jared:
It may be that some FV critics don’t get it, i.e., the decretal vs. covenantal perspective that is fundamental to the FV position. But for the majority of us, that is simply not true.
Rather, it goes like this, “o.k. decretal vs. covenantal Mr FV. I get the distinction and am even willing to agree to the plausibility, even without substantial exegesis to demonstrate this. So now, can you differentiate for me, can you distinguish in such a way that confusion has no room in the discussion? Can you, in other words, provide an explanation of what historically been labled ‘common operations of the spirit’?”
The response is far too often nothing more than what you offer above, mere repetition of the main points without any actual clarification. Then, when not talking with critics, Mr. FV speaks to his non-critical audience in non-differentiating language, and boldy, urgently, pleadingly as if the very destiny of the audience’s souls’ depended on their agreement. Next comes the challenge to take the warnings seriously. Finally comes the explanation of how to take the warnings seriously - faithfulness.
And here comes the final eye-popping concern of us critics. Once again, Mr. FV defines his terms (faithfulness here) in undifferentiated terms, in undistinguihed terms. When we critics say “whoa, let’s clarify,” we’re met with arguments about the necessity of good works, albeit wrapped in appropriate biblical qualifications so these not to be understood as necessary unto justification. Yet these are only assertions, not evidence.
Mr. FV expresses the necessity of good works in a a-priori or congruent manner, not in a contingent manner. O.k., I understand the explanation is that the FV probably means good-works are covenantally congruent but decretally contingent. Yet Mr. FV doesn’t explain this, he does not clear up the confusion he has generated.
It comes back down, of all the various applications of this seminal example from Lane’s original post, to this:
“My question is this, for Wilson: do the people who fall away have any of the ordo salutis blessings of salvation? Are they justified, adopted, sanctified (leave Hebrews 10 out of it for now)? Wilson seems to be comfortable saying that they left Christ and grace. But what does that mean in terms of specifics? Do they participate in justification, just not the same way as the elect do? Or do they not have any of the ordo salutis benefits? This is the question that the critics have, and have never gotten a straight answer on. ”
The seminal issue is the question can be answered by exegesis, even historical study under the topic of the Common Operations of the Spirit. To date (I’ve been following this since right before the first AA conference) its hasn’t appeared. Differentiation, distinguishing between how the covenantal and decretal work, even to the point where Mr. FV’s concern that we treat people the same in the visible Church, can eliminate most of the debate.
To date, I’ve seen little evidence (I’ve seen some) that FV advocates are willing to accept the burden that is their’s to clear up the confusion they have created. I write this not with anger or even mildy elevated blood pressure. Rather, I really (honestly, honestly, honestly) can’t understand why they do not get that this is their obligation under the reign of the gospel.
pduggie said,
October 4, 2007 at 6:40 am
It could possibly be said that man desires theology meet his standards of logical coherence. But God operates differently.
Robert K. said,
October 4, 2007 at 6:54 am
pduggie tirelessly trolls on.
GLW Johnson said,
October 4, 2007 at 6:56 am
I will say it again for emphasis-what Jared is attempting to defend on this thread is NOT confessional Calvinism-and NONE of those in ,or sympathetic to, the FV can appeal to a single Reformed confession to support any of this ‘two kinds of justification’ nonsense. You guys are building a halfway house between Calvinism and Arminianism. With the Calvinists you want to affirm that the ‘decretally’ elect can never fall away-but you also start talking like the Arminians by ascribing to the NECM the very essense of salvation which they do possess in the exact sense that the ‘truely elect’(TE) do, but they end up lost. To makes matters even worst, you have to resort to redefining the nature of saving faith since the faith that the NECM exercises in order to become the reciptent of ‘covenantal justification’ is not the same as the TE. But the NECM faith does in fact ‘justify’ for a time and does bring the NECM into a state where their sins are , for a time, forgiven ( to use pduggie’s expression, ‘a temporary stay of execution’). You are in fact not hybrid ‘Calminians’ like so many folk who claim to be 3 or 4 point Calvinists, but you have morphed into becoming something very unique-you are Arminianists.
reformedmusings said,
October 4, 2007 at 7:49 am
Jared, RE #21,
As Gary said in #26, what you (and others) describe isn’t Reformed at all, but Arminian. Just as in Arminianism, I can never know if I’m elected, which is contrary to WCF 18, 1 Jn 5:13 and other passages. Just as in Arminianism, I can have true saving benefits but then lose them. The same is true in the Roman church, as was immortalized at Trent by anathematizing those who thought that they could know if they were saved or not. Your underlying philosophy may be different to some degree, but the net result is the same unbiblical conclusions.
As for NECM, no such category appears in the NT. Phil 1:6 doesn’t end as “unless you don’t persevere in faithfulness to the objective covenant.” Rom 8:30 doesn’t end with “if you remain faithful in the covenant.” Yet, FV persists as if these qualifications were written there. They aren’t. We are saved because God is faithful, not because we are because we cannot be even in our regenerate state. At best we are unprofitable servants according to Jesus.
In the end, Federal Vision lies to the reprobate in the visible church by giving them confidence in promises that they cannot rightly claim, and make God a liar when He says that He will complete His good work that you claim He started in them. In Scripture and orthodox Reformed theology, God never starts that work in the reprobate, whether or not they sit in a pew on Sunday. You do them no service pastorally or otherwise by lying to them. The benefits to the reprobate for being in the visible church are clearly delineated and limited in WLC 63 backed by the Scripture proofs therein.
Assurance Federal Vision style « Reformed Musings said,
October 4, 2007 at 7:54 am
[...] Federal Vision style GreenBaggins does a great job dealing with the Federal Vision view of assurance. Don’t miss the comments, [...]
greenbaggins said,
October 4, 2007 at 8:04 am
Welcome to my blog, Reed (comment 24).
Andrew Duggan said,
October 4, 2007 at 8:08 am
Re: 27:
[Emphasis mine]
Nicely put and exactly right.
magma2 said,
October 4, 2007 at 9:35 am
Jared writes:
“They are “entitled” to the prize as much as the elect are because they’re running, even in the same/right direction! ”
WOW. I guess at least some FVers will answer Lane’s endlessly repeated question in the terms he wants after all.
I stand corrected.
pduggie said,
October 4, 2007 at 9:35 am
But a stay of execution isn’t “proper” forgiveness.
Though God is provoked by shows of repentence from even Ahab to stay execution for his later offspring. What a merciful God we have.
pduggie said,
October 4, 2007 at 9:38 am
“In the end, Federal Vision lies to the reprobate in the visible church by giving them confidence in promises that they cannot rightly claim”
Your denial of the free and well-meant offer is showing. If anyone KNEW who the reprobate were, then it would be a lie. Maybe all the FV is doing is fully extending the “judgment of charity” into the creedal formulation itself.
pduggie said,
October 4, 2007 at 9:43 am
Lane, what would it cost for you to set up a threaded discussions forum? One with the “ignore” function?
I’ll help pay for it.
magma2 said,
October 4, 2007 at 10:32 am
pduggie writes:
“It could possibly be said that man desires theology meet his standards of logical coherence. But God operates differently.”
FWIW I think pduggie makes a very insightful point and one I’ve made elsewhere and that cuts to the heart of the reason *why* the FV cancer has been able to spread like wildfire and has not been successfully removed by *any* denomination it has taken root, the OPC and PCA most definitely included.
IMO the majority of FV men and their critics alike share, in principle (even though they may express it differently and in different areas), exactly the same disdain and distrust for logical coherence in theology.
Don’t get me wrong, they all believe logic is good as far as it goes, but at some point or other (i.e., when it threatens their exegetical position) logic must be curbed. Anything less is to invoke the charge, label and condemnation of “rationalist.”
This is the escape of the defenders of most every heretical doctrine no matter how damning it may be to the truth of the gospel. Whether it be, say, the so-called “well meant offer” or the Federal Vision, the “apparent contradictions” these doctrinal positions entail MUST be allowed to stand. Christian piety demands it all in the name of the creator/creature distinction. We all must submit our minds to what is clearly contradictory and repeat to ourselves in mantra like fashion; “there are no contradictions for God, there are no contradictions for God,, there are no . . . .”
Pick your poison, but the underlying misology or even just a distrust in logic has a long and pedigreed position within the (modern) Reformed tradition and is something that most, if not all, seminary trained men have imbibed, some more deeply than others, and continue to teach. Now, I don’t know if he is seminary trained or is just a good student, but take Jared’s “yes and no” doctrine concerning election and apostasy above:
“(1) YES, because they are both visible members of the one body (the Church) and that body is/will be justified, glorified, etc.. (2) NO, because one of them is not elect and won’t remain in the body. ”
It seems the FV is exempt from the command let your yes be yes. The problem is that is a principle most of the FV critics share, just not on the same points of tension and incoherence.
Reed DePace said,
October 4, 2007 at 10:33 am
Thanks Lane. Have appreciated what I’ve been reading for a while now.
Jared, we critics really do need the particular interaction, not mere repetition.
jared said,
October 4, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Reed, GLW, reformedmusings,
Thanks for the replies. I’ll respond to each of you in turn with the descending number points corresponding to how I have you ordered above.
1. You say,
So now, can you differentiate for me, can you distinguish in such a way that confusion has no room in the discussion? Can you, in other words, provide an explanation of what historically been labled ‘common operations of the spirit’?”
But this misses my question of “Why”, why is the burden of proof to specifically define what has been historically called common operations now laid upon FV and not the Reformed community as a whole? Let’s take two easy examples: baptism and the eucharist. When a member of the visible church participates in these events, we believe that real, true, unadulterated grace is present(ed), right? So what if this particular participant is non-elect? Does he, somehow, not get the grace that is present(ed) in these sacraments? Is it not your burden to proove that he doesn’t if you believe he really doesn’t? I don’t think Scripture makes such a discrepency possible (though I do think the Scriptures are clear that those who participate in an unworthy manner, as the non-elect are want to do, are condemning themselves all the more).
Now extend that to all of the covenant blessings the visible church is privy to and you have what (I think) the FV is saying. God has promised corporate justification, sanctification, glorification, ect., to the Church, has He not? And as members of that body do we, elect and non-elect alike, not have those promises? You may be understanding the distinction but it seems like you aren’t properly working it out. On the visible/covenantal side of things there’s basically no distinction between the elect and the non-elect, especially if that non-elect is (seemingly) growing in his faith. In this view, even as Paul’s “charity” demands, we in the visible church are all saved, are we not? However, if we look at it from God’s point of view, from the view of the invisible church, things are quite different. A sharp and dividing contrast is made between the elect and the non-elect and on this side of the coin it is clear that the non-elect does not have justification, sanctification, glorification, or salvation.
Moreover, I would even go so far as to argue (perhaps in contradicting myself in my previous comments) that only the elect will ever really be assured. Of course, I will also readily concede that even if you aren’t sure that doesn’t mean you aren’t elect, but I’m sure you’d agree with me on that point. So, in conclusion, if we both agree that there are common operations of the Spirit, why am I (as supposedly FV) obligated to define such operations in specific terms while you are not? Because I (or the FV) am making a covenantal/decretal distinction in the visible church and you aren’t? I don’t get it.
2. It’s also not non-confessional Calvinism. Since none of the confessions speak of justification in the way that FV does, this does not preclude FV advocates from accepting and affirming what the confessions do teach about it and then going further and making finer points. FV certainly is not building a “halfway house” because I don’t know of any FV advocate (or sympathizer) who would would agree with the Remonstrants. That fact alone negates putting them under an Arminian roof, doesn’t it?
You say that we ascribe “to the NECM the very essense of salvation which they do possess in the exact sense that the ‘truely elect’(TE) do, but they end up lost.” This isn’t exactly accurate. It seems to me that the “very essence of salvation” is something only the invisible church possesses and the NECM is not a part of the invisible church. Whatever the NECM has it isn’t the very essence of salvation, otherwise they’d really be saved! I fail to see how speaking about justification and faith in ways other than what the confession(s) speak is warrant for accusations of Arminianism.
As a side note, I, personally, am okay with being considered outside the Reformed tradition in as much as that tradition is biblically wrong. I would qualify this by saying I don’t think the Reformed tradition is gross error (like the RCC) or even in serious error. Quite to the contrary, I largely agree with most everything I’ve encountered in the Reformed tradtion and if disagreeing on a few points gets me ousted, then so be it. As others have pointed out, there are Reformed denominations who would oust people like Calvin and Luther, so I don’t feel too bad about that and as long as I largely agree with what my quadrant of the Reformed world says, I’ll continue to consider myself a part, neither a “Calminian” nor an “Arminianist.”
3. No where have I said you can’t have assurance, nor have I said it is possible to lose true saving benefits in as much as the invisible church is concerned. I think Paul understood, very well, the categories of visible and invisible and that this understanding resulted in the warnings we see throughout his epistles (indeed, such categories would account for the warnings we see throughout the OT as well). Paul goes so far as to point out to the Jews that even having the covenant sign isn’t going to save you, but only faith in Jesus. What comfort does Paul offer Israel when he says that not all are Abraham’s offspring? If you’re basing your assurance on your faithfulness or on having the covenant sign or on anything other than God’s faithfulness then you will be surprised at the end result. I think real assurance results in faithfulness just as real justification results in faithfulness. I think that there can (and will) be times of faithlessness on our part but even during those times God remains faithful to those who are His and He will restore them (as Peter was restored). I can point to times in my own life where this is true and I’ve no doubts about my salvation. I don’t think of salvation as a “here-today-gone-tomorrow” sort of thing as it is with Arminianism (and, more or less, with Catholicism). My salvation is here today and already finished tomorrow.
Let me press WLC 63 as far as you seem to want to press FV in this matter. What, exaclty and specifically, does it mean to be “protected and preserved in all ages”? Does losing one’s salvation not fit in those categories? What are included in the ordinary means of salvation and how do these means not guarantee or assure salvation of the individual who possesses or has access to these means? If “whosoever believes” shall be saved and this includes all that “will come unto him”, then what does it really mean to be a member in the visible church? Obviously the previous question defines the visible church as those who “do profess the true religion” but what, exactly, does that mean? If I profess the true religion, am I not, then, saved? I think Paul had a much better grasp of this distinction than the WCF or the L/SC set forth. What I like about FV is (and even if they are incorrect) at least they’re still moving, searching, studying and digging into Scripture. My quandrant of the Reformed world seems pretty complacent and quite content not to engage in any sort of theological activity that might be contrary to what a fallible confession written 500 years ago says and, seemingly, in spite of what Scripture says. The WS are hardly as clear to us (not that they are unclear), centuries removed, than it was to those who originally penned it. It seems like it would be a good idea to have some sort of council or synod meeting every 100 years in order to, you know, “check up” on this sort of thing.
jared said,
October 4, 2007 at 12:46 pm
magma2,
There’s nothing incoherent there. The “yes” pertains to the visible and the “no” pertains to the invisible. What’s incoherent about that?
Billboards For The Federal Vision « God’s Hammer said,
October 4, 2007 at 3:38 pm
[...] For The Federal Vision Pastor Lane Keister over at Green Baggins asks Doug Wilson: My question is this, for Wilson: do the people who fall away have any of the ordo [...]
reformedmusings said,
October 4, 2007 at 5:13 pm
jared,
Thanks for your reply. I don’t have the time to cover your every point so I’ll briefly hit the highlights.
1. The burden of proof is on FV because they are deviating from the orthodox position. They are the ones who want to change the WCF or think it inadequate or incomplete. There’s a process for that in the PCA, but they refuse to follow it.
God has promised corporate justification, sanctification, glorification, ect., to the Church, has He not? And as members of that body do we, elect and non-elect alike, not have those promises?
No, he hasn’t promised any such thing. Where’s your Scriptural basis for such a statement? There’s nothing in the NT that would even imply that. To the contrary, the Gospel of John especially is full of comments about judgment for the reprobate with no differentiation if they occupy a pew. I’ve posted specifics on my blog in the past on this.
On the visible/covenantal side of things there’s basically no distinction between the elect and the non-elect, especially if that non-elect is (seemingly) growing in his faith.
Absolutely incorrect. Just because no one can see the list in the Book of Life doesn’t mean that FV can create their own religion around that fact. There IS every distinction between the elect and the non-elect in the visible church. It doesn’t matter that you cannot see the details. Jesus said to preach the gospel to them all, and so we do. But the non-elect never accrue any saving blessings (or plastic imitations thereof) of any kind, and telling them that they do is lying. The judgment of charity has been used to cover the gap for thousands of years for pastoral purposes. Using the judgment of charity, we lie to no one and God’s honor and glory is preserved.
2. Since none of the confessions speak of justification in the way that FV does, this does not preclude FV advocates from accepting and affirming what the confessions do teach about it and then going further and making finer points.
In actuality, FV isn’t making fine points but rewriting Reformed theology with a parallel and distinct theology, language, etc. Denying the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, giving justification, adoption, sanctification, and forgiveness of sins to the reprobate in the visible church, and a final judgment based on covenant faithfulness, et al, all directly oppose the orthodox Reformed Standards. Seven denominations have already clearly stated so by overwhelming majorities. FV can’t seem to get the hint that they are out on a limb and sawing on the trunk side.
I fail to see how speaking about justification and faith in ways other than what the confession(s) speak is warrant for accusations of Arminianism.
FV redefines the terms in non-Reformed ways, inventing new categories of people that Jesus never mentions. Then FVers decide who is “really Reformed” based on their own definitions. The end result looks very much like Arminianism (lack of assurance, loss of saving benefits, etc.) Do you really think that these guys are so clever that they discovered something that the Christian world missed for the last 2000 years, and the Reformers for the last 500? I don’t think so, and neither do the overwhelming number of my brothers in seven Reformed denominations.
3. What, exaclty and specifically, does it mean to be “protected and preserved in all ages”? Does losing one’s salvation not fit in those categories?
I found this section confusing, so please forgive me if I misunderstand your intent. The “protected and preserved” refers to the visible church as an institution, not to individual members. Promises to the elect are covered elsewhere. WLC 63 is very clear as to benefits accrued in the visible church, and they are limited and non-salvific for the non-elect. Just jump down to WLC Q. 64-69 and see the contrast of 63 for the visible church with the benefits for the elect with the invisible church. The difference is dramatic. Neither Scripture nor the Standards allow for a middle group of “covenantally elect.”
If I profess the true religion, am I not, then, saved?
Nope, not necessarily. Check out Mt 7:21-23 for example. You are saved by the possession of faith, not the profession of faith. In Rom 10:9, 10, God tells us that it takes profession PLUS true faith (belief in your heart) to be saved, not profession alone. All the catechism is saying in that statement is that all it takes is profession to get into the visible church, but one must be regenerated and granted true saving faith to be a member of the invisible church, and only the elect have the latter.
Finally, times may change but Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Standards are every bit as good today as they were 400-500 years ago (date covers the 3FU and Westminster), because they simply contain the system of doctrine taught in the holy Scriptures, and those doctrines are eternally true. The burden is on those who would challenge these truths to prove their point. So far, they have utterly failed to do so to the satisfaction of all but a tiny handful of very vocal people.
magma2 said,
October 4, 2007 at 5:21 pm
You’re kidding, right Jared?
Read your yes and no statement of faith again. All visible members of the church will be justified and glorified, even though some of them won’t.
Perhaps you can explain how saying one pertains to “the visible” and the other to “the invisible” logically harmonizes what you said?
Either that or maybe you think pduggie is right . . . “man desires theology meet his standards of logical coherence. But God operates differently.” Evidently. =8-()
Mark T. said,
October 4, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Quick tip to Jared:
When ReformedMusings asked,
It was a rhetorical question.
reformedmusings said,
October 4, 2007 at 8:43 pm
pduggie RE #34,
Your denial of the free and well-meant offer is showing. If anyone KNEW who the reprobate were, then it would be a lie. Maybe all the FV is doing is fully extending the “judgment of charity” into the creedal formulation itself.
Nope. The free offer, in which I fully believe, isn’t in view here. You don’t have to know who the reprobate are to preach the promises available to all, but you must caveat that those promises only belong to the elect-those who trust only in Christ. That’s worked for 2000 years until FV came along. There’s no issue with this approach unless you create a mythical “objective covenant” and populate it with the “covenantally elect” who appear nowhere in Jesus preaching and teaching.
Telling the reprobate they have something that isn’t theirs isn’t a judgment of charity. At best it is false advertising and at worst lying. Offer to all, but caveat as Jesus, Paul, Calvin, and others have done since the beginning. Rom 10:8, 9 says confess and believe, not confess and sit in a pew, or confess and be “faithful to the covenant.”
Reed DePace said,
October 4, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Ref. 38:
Thanks for your thoughtful responses Jared. Hopefully my remarks here will help advance understanding and agreement.
You asked:
“But this misses my question of “Why”, why is the burden of proof to specifically define what has been historically called common operations now laid upon FV and not the Reformed community as a whole?”
The issues seeking to be addressed by the FV discussion are not new in the Church’s history. They have been substantially debated and exegeted before. In particular this is true in our own reformed heritage. The burden is not on the FV side because of the covenantal vs. decretal aspects, but because the formulations used to expresed the covenantal aspect by the FV advocates are couched expressly in language that has been acknowledged as at best insufficient to express the fullness of the Bible’s teaching, and at worst to express that teaching in an erroneous, at least heterodox manner. The FV advocates therefore have a burden to offer clarity less their formulations provide at least fresh confusion, if not worse. I am willing to listen to someone who wants to go in the direction the FV seems to want to go. But since the potential for at least confusion flows from their efforts, they need to explain themselves, lest they be guilty of disturbing the peace of Christ’s Bride.
Your sacramental examples do not advance anything. No disrespect, but you respond as if you believe we don’t get what the FV is saying. Most of us do - in your baptism example the FV asserts that covenantally the same grace, but decretally different grace is experienced by the decretally elect/reprobate. There is nothing too difficult to follow about such formulation. The question that must be answered then is, differentiate covenantal grace in baptism from decretal grace in baptism.
You seem to want to assert (I know the FV does) that as we live on the covenantal side of things, for all practical purposes we can’t know there is a difference, so asking for differentiation is a nonsense request by the FV critics. But such is not nonsense, as the Scriptures are replete with decretally rooted explanations and differentiations. It is not true that all we have is the covenantal aspect, so we cannot distinguish between the covenantal verses decretal. It is simply not true that the Bible teaches decretal aspects of our faith as matters that can only be understood and of use to us in eternity, but not at present. Exactly the opposite is true.
“You may be understanding the distinction but it seems like you aren’t properly working it out. …”
Again, yes I get this, and no, I am not failing to work it out. Rather, at least here you (and in general the FV advocates) are failing to do justice to the decretal aspects taught in Scripture. They are not, as I note above, merely taught as future blessings that can only be seen through a mirror dimly now. Read Rom 6 and tell me how in the world such decretally rooted realities are in any sense: 1) not intended for our blessing here and now, and 2) merely covenantal expressions. They in point of fact are not. To say that the covenantal aspect offers a differentiation in application of these blessings is not in question. I agree that the covenantal “only” believer (i.e., not decretally, therefore not of God’s work but merely human decision) are not blessed by the truths of Rom 6 - but not because they share these blessings covenantally and not decretally. Rather, they only receive judgment in this passage because they have not the pre-requisite decretally sourced enablement to express faith in these blessings.
This is not an FV exclusive understanding, and it is consistent with how the Reformed explanations have worked. We do not need to formulate a “decretal difference that can’t be known but a covenantal unity that must be rested in” because that is not where the Scriptures rest themselves. The promise, even in the Decalogue itself demonstrates this. Those Israelites who were not true Israelites (Paul’s decretally rooted definition) were only covenantally Israelites and so received no freedom from God’s declaration of His accomplished redemption (”I am the Lord your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt”). Therefore they had no true resources to obey the law as a rule of faith. Only those who decretally were enabled heard their salvation pronounced in the Decalogue, and so believed resulting in their enabled obedience.
“So, in conclusion, if we both agree that there are common operations of the Spirit, why am I (as supposedly FV) obligated to define such operations in specific terms while you are not? Because I (or the FV) am making a covenantal/decretal distinction in the visible church and you aren’t? I don’t get it.”
It is a shared burden as we are both “covenantally” at least in the same Church. The burden is initially the FV advocates’ because the FV ( and to the degree you use these formulations to define your beliefs, you also), are using formulas that are the same as those of Arminians, et.al., formulas that our forefathers have already demonstrated are at least insufficient to express the fullness of the Bible’s teaching.
There is no problem in asserting covenantal vs. decretal (e.g., say from John 15 and the vine or Matt 13 and the seeds). There is a problem when one insists on not clarifying what the Bible does - and that is the burden the FV advocates bears because they brought it up. My burden is to listen, carefully and fairly, and then offer iron-sharpening. Are we not so engaged? Can we not drop this point and get on to the differentiation even more fully?
reformedmusings said,
October 4, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Mark T.,
It was a rhetorical question.
ROTFLOL!!!
reformedmusings said,
October 4, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Somehow my italics for the quote in #45 didn’t come out. Must be getting late.
jared said,
October 5, 2007 at 12:03 am
reformedmusings,
1. Fair enough, but something tells me this is a process that is there as a matter of principle and not really meant to be used. At any rate, I would stick to the “only God knows” answer I’ve presented throughout my comments in this thread. What differentiates elect from non-elect? Well, saving faith, obviously but that’s not something we can (normally) identify via external criterion now is it? If it looks like works and smells like works, it must be works, right? So how does one of those people end up in hell? I’ve been running with Peter so I’ll stick with him, what if Jesus never restored him and he continued on in his denial? “Well, he didn’t really know Jesus…”, right, okay.
And are you seriously going to maintain that God has not promised justification, sanctification, glorification, etc. to His people as a whole body? What’s the point of even having a judgment of charity if Paul isn’t speaking to the church as a corporate body? “God has promised no such thing.”!? I can’t believe you just said that. Also, for the record, I don’t think the non-elect have any saving benefits, but I do see the FV’s case for it. They’re members of the covenant, God has made promises to members of the covenant, ergo they have the promises. It’s this blind blanket application of salvation to all in the covenant which “inspires” the visible/invisible distinction in the first place, isn’t it? Not all who are of Israel/Church are in Israel/Church, right? So what do all who are of Israel/Church get? Just those things alluded to in WLC 63? No, because that, as you’ve pointed out, says nothing about what actual members of the visible church get. So, what do they get? What sort of benefits do the non-elect members of the visible body get? According to FV critics they don’t get anything but that sort of doesn’t work out so well with the whole being a member thing; members get stuff.
2. I don’t see the FV as redefining anything, I see them building on and expanding or outright using in a different way certain terms that the Reformed community is familiar (and, apparently, attached) with. Again, FV isn’t teaching there can’t be assurance or that salvation (as you are using the term, as the Reformed community has used the term since Luther and Calvin) can be lost. I don’t see where you’re coming from on this point.
3. There’s always been a middle group. There’s the non-believer, there’s the believer and there’s the true believer. Or, in other words, there’s the unchurched, there’s the visible church and there’s the invisible church.
You say, “In Rom 10:9, 10, God tells us that it takes profession PLUS true faith (belief in your heart) to be saved, not profession alone.” to which I respond: What!? Profession plus true faith?? Works! Works! Closet Arminian! Sounds sort of like a ridiculous accusation doesn’t it? That’s a small piece of what I imagine many FV advocates feel. You also say, “All the catechism is saying in that statement is that all it takes is profession to get into the visible church, but one must be regenerated and granted true saving faith to be a member of the invisible church, and only the elect have the latter.” to which I respond: Alright, so back to my question above. What do members of the visible church get as far as benefits and all that covenant promise stuff goes? Finally, I never said the WS weren’t as good anymore, I said they aren’t as clear any more. This should be obvious from the simple fact of multiple Reformed denominations and multiple interpretations of those standards (e.g. strict subscroptionist versus, well, any other type really). I like the WS, I grew up with them, I went to college with them (I’m a Covenant grad, ‘05). I, however, absolutely agree with the FV on at least this one point: the Standards don’t say everything there is to say about everything in Scripture or even everything there is to say about what the Standards do contain.
I’ve more to say but it’s late and my wife is calling me. I’ll respond to the others later as well. Thanks, all, for the interaction.
Robert K. said,
October 5, 2007 at 2:09 am
Jared, you give too much to this ‘federal vision’. Reformed Theology is not new. It was initially a recovering of apostolic biblical doctrine. It’s not a work-in-progress. There is no new doctrine just as there are no new heresies. There is sound biblical doctrine and then there are the myriad man-centered, devil-inspired complaints against said doctrine. These complaints are brought in various ways, sometimes by saying “we aren’t changing anything, we are merely building upon what has gone before…” and it always comes down to a demand that doctrine teach what the Beast system needs to maintain power over souls. Justification by faith alone in Christ alone by Grace alone is always the target, one way or another, whether it is attacked at the fount in the Garden (”there is no Covenant of Works!” or it is attacked further down the river it is always the same. Ministers of the devil want you in bondage to the devil, and just as they first of all didn’t want you having access to the Word of God they now have to distort and defile sound biblical doctrine since they can’t keep the Word of God away from God’s elect.
Wake up. (Rom. 13:11)
GLW Johnson said,
October 5, 2007 at 6:37 am
Jared
You say that the WS aren’t as ‘clear’ as they once were. Does this apply as well to the Three forms of Unity? What about the Nicene Creed or the formula of the Council of Chalcedon? What determines clarity in creeds-or perhaps I should rephrase that and ask WHO determines whether or not our creeds/confessions have ceased to be ‘clear’? You sound like some echo coming out of the emergent crowd. So, every time a bunch of yahoos can’t find support for their theological novities in the Reformed confessions we are suppose to bow to their demands and revise the confessions to suit their fancies? And don’t give that broken record rant of Jeff Meyers about our unreformable tradition resembling Roman Catholicism vs his noble Biblicism. Every heterodoxical group always claims that they are just following the Bible. Like I said earlier, the FV crowd should withdraw from bodies like the OPC and PCA and go off and take a pair of scissors to the WS and draw up their own mutalated version and then see how long it takes for it to stand the test of time.
pduggie said,
October 5, 2007 at 8:12 am
“Nope. The free offer, in which I fully believe, isn’t in view here. You don’t have to know who the reprobate are to preach the promises available to all, but you must caveat that those promises only belong to the elect-those who trust only in Christ.”
No you don’t. Not when your preaching them to all. No caveat needed, other than the conditionality of faith.
Jesus had 12 disciples. He warned 1 of them (without mentioning who) that he was a devil. He didn’t warn them AS he called them to “follow me”.
But he said to all of them “you shall sit on TWELVE thrones, ruling the TWELVE tribes of israel”
That was a promise to Judas. No caveat, and Jesus didn’t LIE when he said it.
jared said,
October 5, 2007 at 8:15 am
GLW,
I’m not as familiar with the 3FU so I can’t speak with any weight in that regard. I don’t think the Nicene Creed is unclear, but it wasn’t an attempt at systematizing doctrine either so you can’t really put it in the same category/class as the WS. As for the “Who” question, that is, indeed the question, isn’t it? I suppose it depends on the denomination. In the PCA, GA/presbyteries determines clarity and those with positions of authority are allowed to take exceptions according to specific guidelines. As for other denominations, I presume it works basically the same way (except for the exceptions part for some, I suppose). I don’t the the PCA should “bow to their demands” at all, but I don’t think they should be outright ignored either. The process of the study report (and it’s content) made very clear what the PCA’s “intentions” are in these matters. I also don’t think Meyers’ rant is completely off kilter but I would not go so far as to agree completely with him. You say, “Every heterodoxical group always claims that they are just following the Bible.” but doesn’t this line of reasoning work against the project of the Reformation? I agree with you that there are some (perhaps many) FV advocates who should withdraw from bodies like the OPC and PCA but I certainly would not hold their withdrawing against them as brothers.
pduggie said,
October 5, 2007 at 8:19 am
“Only those who decretally were enabled heard their salvation pronounced in the Decalogue, and so believed resulting in their enabled obedience.”
The reprobate don’t even *hear* in any sense now? That makes hash of “it is not the hearers of the law who will be saved”
*Everyone* heard salvation pronounced. Those who were Spiritually enabled (the decree enabled nothing, the decree was the cause of the Spirits operation which enabled) believed what they heard.
Sam Steinmann said,
October 5, 2007 at 8:44 am
GLW,
I know the question was to Jared, but I’ll answer it as well. Yes, I think the “not as clear as it once was” critique is true of the Nicene Creed, and has been for a very very long time; that’s why the Declaration of Chalcedon was written.
Mark T. said,
October 5, 2007 at 8:47 am
Pduggie plays a little fast and loose with the text, writing,
But if you read the text without pduggie’s clever editing, you’ll see that our Lord delivered the promise with very significant qualification:
No, Jesus did not lie when he made His promise, but I’m not sure what word to use to describe Mr. Duggie’s clever translation of the text.
jared said,
October 5, 2007 at 8:50 am
magma2,
Read my comment a little more carefully. The case that the FV is making is that all in the visible church have the corporate promises of the covenant, the promise of God to justify, sanctify, glorify, etc. In that sense, and in that sense only, do non-elect have those promises/blessings. An in that sense only do they lose them. As for the harmonizing you’re asking for, it seems clear that everything the visible church has is not the same as everything the invisible church has. The invisible church has more (or more real?) promises than the invisible church because she is composed of only the elect. She is given not only those promises at the corporate level, but at the individual level; in other words, not just the “us” but the “me” will be justified, sanctified, glorified, etc. The non-elect don’t have the “me” level, but it seems as though they must have the “us” level, lest they not be considered members of the visible body. My understanding is that it is by “good and necessary reasoning” that the visible/invisible distinction exists in the first place. The covenant is made, unequivocally, with Israel/Church. When God says the promises are for us and our children, He doesn’t qualify “us” or “children” as needing to be part of some invisible entity that only He knows. No, the promises are made broadly to the visible and specifically to individuals. The non-elect have the promises broadly (my “yes”
and the elect have them specifically (my “no”). Again, what is incoherent about that?
GLW Johnson said,
October 5, 2007 at 8:50 am
Jared the fence-sitter
My, but you are so broad-minded ! On the one hand you agree but on the other hand you don’t. Both sides are right and both sides of this debate are wrong-according to you. So you , in your Solomon like wisdom, will render a verdict on this theological quagmire that will leave both sides scratching their heads saying, “Now why didn’t we think of that?” Surely wisdom will die with you. Please forgo patronizing us with any more of this.
GLW Johnson said,
October 5, 2007 at 9:13 am
Sam S.
Chalcedon was not written to ‘correct’ Nicene. The Nicene Creed is briefer but what it says is not ‘unclear’. Just because certain Biblical texts have been jerked out of their contexts by heretics does not mean that the perspicuity of Scripture is somehow in question.
magma2 said,
October 5, 2007 at 9:22 am
Jared
What differentiates elect from non-elect?
Jesus Christ. He gave his life for the one and not the other. It seems while stamping out “P” you’ve lost “L” too. Maybe FV can come up with an appropriate acronym for STEM, since there’s not much TULIP left.
I’ve been running with Peter so I’ll stick with him, what if Jesus never restored him and he continued on in his denial? “Well, he didn’t really know Jesus…”, right, okay.
No need for hypotheticals. There is always Judas.
And are you seriously going to maintain that God has not promised justification, sanctification, glorification, etc. to His people as a whole body?
Your error, Jared, and the error of all the teachers you follow, is those who comprise the class, “His people,” are the elect and the elect alone (which means, just in case you’re still not clear, plus no one).
Also, for the record, I don’t think the non-elect have any saving benefits, but I do see the FV’s case for it.
So you retract everything you’ve said above concerning God making promises (justification, glorification, etc.) to the elect and non-elect members of the visible church? You’re the one who has impugned God’s promises by trying to switch the focus onto the success or failures of your sweaty runners.
They’re members of the covenant, God has made promises to members of the covenant, ergo they have the promises.
Strike that. The problem is you don’t understand the covenant, much less who the members are.
Answer (WLC 31)
With whom was the covenant of grace made?
The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.
It’s this blind blanket application of salvation to all in the covenant which “inspires” the visible/invisible distinction in the first place, isn’t it? Not all who are of Israel/Church are in Israel/Church, right? So what do all who are of Israel/Church get?
You say not all Israel is Israel. Good, but do you even understand Paul’s argument in Romans? There were no promises made to every member of the OT visible church. God’s covenant was established not with Ishmael, but with Isaac, even before he was even conceived. God made no promises to all Israel; i.e., all those who received the sign of the covenant, circumcision.
The problem is not with God’s promises, but with those Jews [and FV men] who misunderstand the promises, thinking that God had made promises to all the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob [or all baptized members of the visible church]. FV men are stupider than the Jews Paul refutes. Paul denies that there is any group justification, corporate election to salvation, or corporate salvation. Rather than assuring their salvation, their outward advantages - chiefly the oracles of God, the Scriptures - condemned them more severely than the Gentiles, who did not have any special revelation from God.
There’s always been a middle group. There’s the non-believer, there’s the believer and there’s the true believer. Or, in other words, there’s the unchurched, there’s the visible church and there’s the invisible church.
This is part of your problem. There are only believers and unbelievers. Some of the latter class are also members of the visible church. Consider Jesus’ parable of the wheat and tares (evidently another parable FV men do not understand):
24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Sam Steinmann said,
October 5, 2007 at 9:25 am
GLW,
I agree; if someone were proposing to “correct” the WCF, I would easily be able to see why that is a problematic project. But my understanding was the Declaration of Chalcedon was written to clarify–not correct–the previous creeds; that is, to make certain teachings, that could be argued to be in accordance with the Nicene Creed, explicit heresies. Nothing CHANGED, but some things were much clearer.
GLW Johnson said,
October 5, 2007 at 9:37 am
Sam S
James Jordon said over at DRC that the entire 7 chapter of the WCF needed to be completely redone from top to bottom-but it is not just that chapter- the whole of the WS would have to overhauled if Ch. 7 is scrapped. Meyers is equally dogmatic about how obtuse and insufficent the WS have become. I like the Standards just the way they are and wish that this bunch would just go away…the sooner the better.
pduggie said,
October 5, 2007 at 9:40 am
I was quoting Luke 22, where it isn’t as “clear”, not recalling the Mathew parallel. That said, its still a fairly subtle caveat.
There is still the matter that he says this with Judas right there, as one of the 12, and Jesus cites a numerical benefit that is prepared for 12 folks.
I guess I wouldn’t have problems with a reprobate caveat that was THAT subtle that lots of folks will miss it.
Like telling your visible church of 100 members that God has 100 mansions in his house for you 100 guys *who follow Jesus*. Acceptable caveat?
pduggie said,
October 5, 2007 at 9:45 am
“Maybe FV can come up with an appropriate acronym for STEM, since there’s not much TULIP left.”
That’s pretty good. Kudos.
magma2 said,
October 5, 2007 at 9:56 am
Read my comment a little more carefully. The case that the FV is making is that all in the visible church have the corporate promises of the covenant, the promise of God to justify, sanctify, glorify, etc.
Yeah, I got that. Thanks.
In that sense, and in that sense only, do non-elect have those promises/blessings.
In what sense? Rather than attempting to equivocate on the sense of words you never define, it looks to me that you’re saying that God made promises that He does not keep, at least in some cases. I don’t see any other way of reading what you’re saying, even though you accuse me of not reading you carefully enough. Saying God makes a promise of justification, sanctification , etc., corporately and the same promise individually does not alter the promises themselves. Can’t you see that?
So, what sense do you mean? What promises of justification, sanctification and glorification did God make to the non-elect members of the visible church? How about some of that “biblisicsm” stuff and allowing the Scriptures to speak beyond the narrow confines of the Confession I keep hearing about? How about a biblical argument Jared instead of just reguritating the vomit you’ve been fed by James Jordon and the rest of the godfathers of FV soul?
As for the harmonizing you’re asking for, it seems clear that everything the visible church has is not the same as everything the invisible church has. The invisible church has more (or more real?) promises than the invisible church because she is composed of only the elect. She is given not only those promises at the corporate level, but at the individual level;
I’ll have to try that one on my 9 year old son. “I know Conor that I promised to take you to McDonalds tonight, but that was on the corporate level. On the individual level, i.e., as it actually applies to you and your desire for a Big Mac, the answer is NO.”
Hey, don’t laugh. That kind of reasoning evidently worked on you, so I have to think it will work on a 9 year old boy.
OK, that was mean, but, seriously, something needs to shake you from your FV stupor Jared. You really need to wake up and take a careful look at what it is you’re saying. You’ve been fed lies and you need to recognize that Jordon and the rest of those men are liars.
in other words, not just the “us” but the “me” will be justified, sanctified, glorified, etc. The non-elect don’t have the “me” level, but it seems as though they must have the “us” level, lest they not be considered members of the visible body.
Huh? =8-o
My understanding is that it is by “good and necessary reasoning” that the visible/invisible distinction exists in the first place.
Why don’t you start with the distinction the Confession writers make and the one they drew from Scripture and go from there?
The covenant is made, unequivocally, with Israel/Church. When God says the promises are for us and our children, He doesn’t qualify “us” or “children” as needing to be part of some invisible entity that only He knows.
You’re wrong Jared, God has very much qualified with whom His covenant was made, but it seems you want to perpetuate Abraham’s error when he said: “Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!” You might recall, Abraham reasoned that his wife was a bit too old to have a child (she was ninety after all, no wonder he laughed 8-), and, besides, he already had a son who already received the sign of the covenant that God made with him and that was Ismael.
But God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.”
You need to go back and relearn the biblical covenant and throw that cheap imitation you were sold in the trash.
No, the promises are made broadly to the visible and specifically to individuals. The non-elect have the promises broadly (my “yes”) and the elect have them specifically (my “no”). Again, what is incoherent about that?
Uh . . . nothing. Good job.
magma2 said,
October 5, 2007 at 9:58 am
Sorry about the bleeding itals. I forgot to turn one set off. Doh!
pduggie said,
October 5, 2007 at 10:22 am
“Kids! We got a five-person free meal coupon for mcdonalds! We’re all going to mcdonalds for dinner tonight!”
mom and kids 1-2! “Yay!”
Teen Kid 3 “I hate mcdonalds. Dad you’re such a jerk”
Dad: well, you’re staying home then.
jared said,
October 5, 2007 at 10:22 am
Reed,
Very helpful. You say,
The burden is not on the FV side because of the covenantal vs. decretal aspects, but because the formulations used to expresed the covenantal aspect by the FV advocates are couched expressly in language that has been acknowledged as at best insufficient to express the fullness of the Bible’s teaching, and at worst to express that teaching in an erroneous, at least heterodox manner. The FV advocates therefore have a burden to offer clarity less their formulations provide at least fresh confusion, if not worse. I am willing to listen to someone who wants to go in the direction the FV seems to want to go. But since the potential for at least confusion flows from their efforts, they need to explain themselves, lest they be guilty of disturbing the peace of Christ’s Bride.
I think this is spot on. Perhaps because I haven’t been to seminary yet and am not as well read as many involved in this discussion, I don’t see the problems and confusion that you (or other FV critics) see; or or don’t see as much anyway. I also don’t see the difficulty with using the same term in different ways and letting context determine which use is meant (e.g. justification and election). Your perspective is helpful and insightful here, I think.
I do not intend to ignore the meat of your response but I don’t want to seem as if I’m making excuses either. Let me hit just a couple of highlights, then, before we get into the sharpening.
You say, “The question that must be answered then is, differentiate covenantal grace in baptism from decretal grace in baptism.” Yes, that is certainly one of the questions. I think the answer starts with saying the decretal grace in baptism puts you, really, on the path to salvation whereas covenantal grace in baptism puts you in, or connects you with, really, the covenant body (the visible church). Covenantal grace in baptism is always present in every (legitimate) baptism, whereas decretal grace in baptism is only present among the elect. Can we agree on this?
You say, “It is not true that all we have is the covenantal aspect, so we cannot distinguish between the covenantal verses decretal. It is simply not true that the Bible teaches decretal aspects of our faith as matters that can only be understood and of use to us in eternity, but not at present. Exactly the opposite is true.” Agreed.
You say, “Read Rom 6 and tell me how in the world such decretally rooted realities are in any sense: 1) not intended for our blessing here and now, and 2) merely covenantal expressions.” I think we can make a distinction between passages which are decretally rooted (as Romans 6 obviously is) and the fact that Paul isn’t writing to only the decretally elect. Paul is writing to the church(es) in Rome and, invariably, it contained both non-elect and elect believers alike. This, I suppose, is where the judgment of charity comes into play. While it is clear that the content of Romans 6 can only be applied to the decretally elect, the non-elect can (and likely does) read it and think it applies to him also. Does it apply to him? Well, no, obviously not as an individual, but Paul isn’t speaking to individuals, he’s speaking to the church. So, in as much as the non-elect is a member of the church, do these word not also apply to him in some sense? I think this is one of the things that the FV is trying to get at.
You say,
We do not need to formulate a “decretal difference that can’t be known but a covenantal unity that must be rested in” because that is not where the Scriptures rest themselves. The promise, even in the Decalogue itself demonstrates this. Those Israelites who were not true Israelites (Paul’s decretally rooted definition) were only covenantally Israelites and so received no freedom from God’s declaration of His accomplished redemption (”I am the Lord your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt”). Therefore they had no true resources to obey the law as a rule of faith. Only those who decretally were enabled heard their salvation pronounced in the Decalogue, and so believed resulting in their enabled obedience.
I see one problem here; those Israelites who were not true Israelites were still rescued from Egypt. God was still their God even if in the end they fell away and did not obey (maybe they even obeyed for a time?). In fact, receiving the covenant curses was a direct result of this truth; how else could God justly bring His wrath upon them? As a parallell with the church, how much greater condemnation do those non-elect believers receive than those who have never believed? I think this is where the seed/vine imagery plays its most poignant role in the discussion. The branches that get cut off really were connected, weren’t they? What does that connection mean, imply, entail? I know what some FV people think, but what do you think? Pointing me to the WLC, as reformedmusings has done, isn’t helpful here because it doesn’t tell us what the benefits of visible membership are; rather it tells us what benefits the visible church has.
Finally, you say, “My burden is to listen, carefully and fairly, and then offer iron-sharpening. Are we not so engaged? Can we not drop this point and get on to the differentiation even more fully?” to which I respond: Our burden is the same in this regard and, yes, it seems we are so engaged (though I may not be an adequate foil). Since we have agreed that a distinction between covenantal and decretal can be made we can most certainly drop that point and move on. Thanks again for your interaction.
jared said,
October 5, 2007 at 10:28 am
GLW,
I do not presume (or assume) so much.
pduggie said,
October 5, 2007 at 10:39 am
quotes from calvin
“These, who truly belong to Christ, Paul correctly observes, are called “a remnant;” for experience proves, that of a great multitude the most part fall away and disappear, so that often only a small portion remains. That the general election of a people is not always effectual and permanent, a reason readily presents itself, because, when God covenants with them, He does not also give the spirit of regeneration to enable them to preserve in the covenant to the end; but the eternal call, without the internal efficacy of grace, which would be sufficient for their preservation, is a kind of medium between the rejection of all mankind and the election of the small number of believers.
“Lastly, the general adoption of the seed of Abraham was a visible representation of a greater blessing, which God conferred on the few out of the multitude.”
Reed DePace said,
October 5, 2007 at 11:39 am
Ref. #52:
Pduggie (sorry do not have your name):
You said:
“The reprobate don’t even *hear* in any sense now? That makes hash of “it is not the hearers of the law who will be saved”
*Everyone* heard salvation pronounced. Those who were Spiritually enabled (the decree enabled nothing, the decree was the cause of the Spirits operation which enabled) believed what they heard.”
Of course they all heard, and they all heard salvation pronounced. That’s not what I said. What I said was “they heard THEIR salvation.”
The decretal emphasis was merely to put this in terms of the FV terminology. I was using that as a label for the whole Spirit process we call effectual calling (i.e., I was using decretal as a synedoche.)
You’re looking for an argument where there isn’t one.
The reprobate can hear salvation in Scripture. Some of the best critical commentaries every written were penned by liberals in the older Internation Critical Commentary series - they can tell you exactly what a given biblical author is saying with powerful and forceful insight. Yet they do not believe the message. I.E., they heard salvation, but they did not hear their salvation because there was no operation of the Spirit effectually calling them.
I’m relatively sure you get this, and all that happened is that you missed the critical qualifying word in the whole phrase.
reed
Reed DePace said,
October 5, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Ref #63:
Jared: as I have time over the next few days I hope to engage here with you (thanks Lane for the venue).
One quick response: you said:
“Covenantal grace in baptism is always present in every (legitimate) baptism, whereas decretal grace in baptism is only present among the elect. Can we agree on this?”
This is an example of a novel formulation from within the FV. To be fair to the FV advocates, I don’t remember seeing this express formula. Although from the reviews (positive and negative) of Dr. Leithart’s new book, and as well the methodology of the FV, I think such a formulation is consistent with their approach.
The first question to be answered is what is the grace of baptism, and does it offer any grace to all recipients? My quick answer, based on my own study to reach my own convictions - not merely my parroting others, is this is an unbiblical understanding of grace. Grace is from one view the action of the Spirit in an individual’s life to seal to him the covenant’s promises - this is fundamentally expressed in Scripture as a decretal aspect, not merely a covenantal aspect (to again use FV synedoche to frame our discussion.) Baptism is a sign and seal only to the decretally elect. To the covenantally only elect (FV, otherwise labled by historic reformed formulas as the reprobate), in the act of baptism they receive the sign but not the thing signified because the Spirit is not operative to seal it to them.
So what grace do they, the covenantally only elect (the reprobate) receive? And further, where can this be demonstrated in Scripture?
The FV advocates at this point would argue that I’m not reading the Scripture from its necessary covenantal perspective. My response is that their understanding of covenant is not THE foundational hermeneutic of Scripture. It is a lens through which to view Scripture, but not the only lense. To use the analogy of a set of glasses, I can accept that the FV’s intention that the covenant as a critical lens. Yet they want to pop out the other lense (the decretal aspect), and simply ignore the frame in which these lenses must rest (the redemptive-Christological center).
In application here only to baptism (but in principle to any FV formula), the FV needs to demonstrate that there are some Scriptures that not only couch baptism in covenantal language (most assuredly), but necessarily mean the kinds of conclusions they want to insist on. I.e., baptism that means sign AND seal covenantally only. I believe this cannot be done.
And I think this demonstrates the fatal flaw in the FV initiative (or movement as some advocates have labeled it). They have a presupposition to an interpretive framework, a hermeneutic, that addresses itself to valid topics, but does so in an exclusivistic-exclusionary manner. Its not that the FV hermeneutic is simply skewed or out focus. The FV has settled for a monocle, not the Bible’s full set of glasses.
reed
magma2 said,
October 5, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Paul is writing to the church(es) in Rome and, invariably, it contained both non-elect and elect believers alike.
Let’s see, Paul addresses his letter to “all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Are you telling us that the reprobate are also beloved of God, saints and who have peace from God who is their Father? That’s quite incredible, but that is exactly what you’re asserting when you say Paul is writing his letter to the Roman church, elect and non-elect included.
Did Paul really consider unbelievers, false teachers, hypocrites, and the generally deluded Go