I am feeling a bit better today, though not over it by any stretch. Thanks to Robert for his kind words and intercessory prayer, and to others who have prayed.
I am going to respond a bit to Wilson’s post.
Sodium is a poison. Chloride is also a poison. So many people think that if you combine the two, you will get twice as much of a poison as you had before, and the combination should definitely not be sprinkled on your breakfast eggs (I am borrowing from Gordon Clark’s logic book here). This is called the fallacy of composition. The properties of individuals (such as sodium and chloride) are not necessarily the properties of the group (sodium chloride; table salt for us non-chemical-engineers).
The church is made up of many individuals. However, the properties of the individuals are not necessarily the properties of the church as a whole. The same thing is true for government. Otherwise, capital punishment would be murder. But the church has the responsibility for keeping doctrinal purity church-wide. This is what makes the Presbyterian form of government so potentiall helpful here. The denomination as a whole is responsible for the doctrinal direction of all its member churches.
I have to admit that I had to read parts of Wilson’s post twice before I understood what he was saying. It isn’t every day that I get accused of denying justification by faith alone, after all. But after reading a few more lines, I saw that Wilson was committing this fallacy of composition. He was weaving in and out of the corporate/individual spheres as if there was no problem in doing so. However, my argument applies most specifically to denominations as a whole. Individual churches within that demonination can have greater or lesser purity depending on their adherence to the denomination standard. Individual people are more less pure on a much smaller scale yet. Wilson did not seem to differentiate much between these various layers.
But secondly, in addition to committing the fallacy of composition, he also set up a straw man. I nowhere stated that someone is saved by having faith in justification by faith. Strange, N.T. Wright sets up this straw man all over the place, and people think he is somehow eloquent and has somehow scored a great rhetorical point for doing so. But that’s a side issue. The point here is that I wasn’t talking about whether a person is saved by believing in justification by faith. What I was talking about was whether a church was pure or whether it was apostate. And I’m going to stick to my guns here. With the qualifications mentioned in my last post on this, a church (we’re talking a denomination) that gets justification by faith wrong is apostate. That might mean that many churches are apostate. So be it. Is justification the article by which the church stands or falls, or isn’t it? And I’m sorry, but making a distinction between “falling” and “fallen” is just a bit too convenient in my mind. I think it is fairly safe to say that there is a living organic relationship between the two, and for the life of me, I wouldn’t be able to know whether or not a church is one or the other. By Wilson’s definition, almost no church is apostate. How many of the Reformation era would have agreed with Wilson that Rome was not an apostate church? They were calling the Pope the Antichrist, for goodness’ sakes.
I will take a bit of issue with Wilson’s “schemata/light” analogy. The WCF is called a confession of faith for a reason. These are the truths that we confess, as Sproul’s trilogy says. The problem with his analogy is that it seems to suggest that the schemata are somehow not organically related to light. But would anyone of us say that if you believe what the standards teach (and the standards point us to Jesus as our Savior, do they not?), you don’t have any light on? Do they only give you a shematic drawing of light fixtures? I thought that they summarized scriptural teaching on the most important issues related to our salvation. We are saved by grace through faith, but that includes God’s giving us a proper understanding of how that works. I’m not saying that a person couldn’t be saved despite his erroneous theology. But if he has bad theology, then he would be saved despite his bad theology, and not because of, or in indifference to his theology.
This last example brings us to the question of hypothetical warnings. Lane argues, quite properly, that the warnings are used by God as one of His means for keeping the decretally elect from falling away. We have no disagreement on that point. But there is a related disagreement. The decretally elect are not just kept on the straight and narrow by propositional warnings. They are also kept there by the actual condemnation of covenant members as warning examples.
I’m not quite sure where he manufactured this disagreement from. The only place I could disagree is in a definition of what is a covenant member who is condemned, and what such a person possessed (or didn’t possess!). I am definitely warned by those who were part of the visible church who fall away from that church and live lives full of sin, and receive the just condemnation of their sins by being given over to their sins. How can that not be a warning. Not sure where Wilson got that disagreement. There are many things that keep the elect on the straight and narrow. They are called the means of grace.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
chris hutchinson said,
October 12, 2007 at 11:43 am
Believing “in Jesus as the Son of God and receiving and resting on Him alone for salvation” IS precisely affirming justification by faith alone. (And the PCA’s membership vows require it.)
What would it mean to affirm the above, but then say that works are necessary to maintain one’s justification? Is that really faith in Jesus? Certainly not faith in Jesus alone.
So NT Wright’s little maxim that we are justified by faith, and not by faith in justification by faith, simply confuses the issue and wants to make peace with Rome at a place there should be no peace.
What does it mean to trust in Christ if NOT by faith alone? So, I for one, do not think we should back down from saying that a credible profession of faith requires that one be able to articulate, at some level, justification by faith alone.
greenbaggins said,
October 12, 2007 at 11:46 am
I agree. I just don’t think that it is absolutely necessary to say it in so many words.
William Scott said,
October 12, 2007 at 12:15 pm
While I’m not FV (sorry for making that clarification before each post, but I’m afraid I’ll get lumped otherwise).
I do want to make sure again that in disagreeing with the Historic faith of the Church on apostasy that ya’ll are not saying that all who affirm this teaching (including Luther himself) deny the Gospel or justification by faith alone, etc.
While the Lutheran (Book of Concord) and Anglican Formularies (Articles/Homilies and BCP) teach with St. Augustine the reality of Election to Final Glory (see Article 17, and the Sections on Election in the Book of Concord, etc–or the writings of Luther himself)–they also teach with St. Augustine, and the entire Church for 1500 years, the reality of falling from Salvation (please see the Apostasy thread on this point).
God Bless,
William Scott
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
William Scott said,
October 12, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Caught one typo (left out *in*):
“… I’m afraid I’ll get lumped *in* otherwise”
greenbaggins said,
October 12, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Umm, this post is about justification by faith, not about election/apostasy. It is about whether or not a church is apostate if it teaches or does not teach justification. Please try to stay on topic.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
October 12, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Hey there, Lane. Glad you’re feeling a bit better!
In the post to which you are responding, Doug Wilson wrote,
“One more angle and I am done with this point. Since this point is so clear to Lane, I would suggest that he draft a series of questions for a test that theologians of various communions could take. The questions would have to be specific enough to keep the papists from passing it (no softball questions like “Are we saved by Jesus?”), and general enough to keep Billy Graham from flunking it. And if a theologian, representing his communion accurately, missed just one question, then that church would have to be declared apostate. Think for [sic] minute. Why is it not clear that to administer a test like this, on these conditions, is actually a demand for justification by works? So it is true that we are justified by faith alone. It is not true that we are justified through a proper understanding of justification by faith alone.”
The Apostle Paul warned the Colossians not to be taken in by “plausible arguments.” Doug Wilson’s argument here is a good example of the sort of “plausible argument” that deludes those who do not have full assurance of the knowledge of Christ (Colossians 2:1-5).
Every church everywhere has always and will always administer doctrinal tests (the fact that some tests are too strict and some are too leniant is beside the point). If asking a person what they believe is “actually a demand for justification by works” that would be news to every church everywhere that has ever asked a person membership questions.
So, you don’t need to “draft a series of questions” for this proposed experiment, you can simply continue to make use of the ones we use in the PCA to admit someone into communing membership, the first three of which are on point:
1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
And as my brother has pointed out, the person that (rightly understanding the questions) cannot give assent to this simple summary of justification by faith alone (and yet by a faith that is not alone), does not yet have saving faith.
When you and your elders seek to discern whether a person has put their faith in Christ alone you are not “actually demanding justification by works,” whatever plausible/sophistic/ludicrous arguments are made to the contrary.
God bless you, my brother!
greenbaggins said,
October 12, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Very good arguments, Jeff. It saves me the trouble of answering that part of Wilson’s post. :-)
William Scott said,
October 12, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I apologize for going off topic–I was responding, though, to what Chris Hutchinson was saying.
God Bless,
William Scott
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Sam Steinmann said,
October 12, 2007 at 2:03 pm
I don’t think Jeff’s argument works; a Catholic would pass that test.
David Gadbois said,
October 12, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Jeff and Chris are exactly right.
Wilson trots out the old “we’re not saved by having faith in justification by faith alone” canard.
But the real issue is whether or not an individual is *practicing* sola fide – that they are trusting Christ for salvation without respect to their works. A person’s professed theology may or may not articulate that reality well, but can we not be fairly certain that someone is *not* practicing sola fide if they deny sola fide as Romanists do?
That question should answer itself.
David Gadbois said,
October 12, 2007 at 2:23 pm
William Scott,
I know you are trying to wedge your hobby horses in whenever you can, but you are on a Reformed web sit here. Anglicans and Lutherans are not Reformed. They are compromised theologies, and we don’t let those who believe such things preach from our pulpits. You aren’t going to get any traction here by quoting Augustine or the Formula of Concorde.
Sam Steinmann said,
October 12, 2007 at 2:33 pm
But the real issue is whether or not an individual is *practicing* sola fide – that they are trusting Christ for salvation without respect to their works.
David,
Is that even possible? I trust that I am saved by Christ because when I examine myself, I can see that His grace really and actually changes my motives and actions. It is the fact that I CAN look at works I do through Christ’s power that makes self-examination a plausible exercise.
David Gadbois said,
October 12, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Sam,
We all affirm that works have *evidentiary* value in determining whether or not I am justified, but this does not mean one is making works the instrumental cause (rather than or alongside of faith) nor ground (rather than Christ’s person and work) by which we are justified.
FV has the worst time making these distinctions, even though they are so basic and would be known by anyone who stayed awake in their systematics 101 course in seminary. Although it should be noted that Wilson nor Lusk went to seminary, so while I am not surprised this is not an excuse. They would have done far better to at least crack open Berkhof’s ST rather than disturbing the people of God with their novel and incompetent theological tinkerings.
Douglas Wilson said,
October 12, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Lane, welcome back. Glad you’re feeling better. I will have a response to some of this on my blog shortly.
William Scott said,
October 12, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Hello David–can’t deny that the points I mentioned are some of my theological hobby horses. ;-)
Anyway, you said:
“They are compromised theologies, and we don’t let those who believe such things preach from our pulpits.”
That’s fine–I just want the distinction between beliefs which are a heretical denial of the Gospel or of Justification by faith alone and beliefs which you and others here consider to be “compromised theologies which prevents from preaching in Reformed pulpits” to be kept clear (because there is a difference between the two).
God Bless,
William Scott
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
October 12, 2007 at 7:54 pm
It is interesting to read Doug Wilson’s response to this thread on his blog.
He believes I have “completely missed the point here.” While that is always a possibility, did anybody else read my comment above (#6) in such a way as to hear me teaching any (or all!) of the following things?
* That elders ought to pose membership questions in such a way as to “demand that (people) trust in ‘living in this certain way’ for their justification.”
* That elders ought to “require (people),” not to trust in Christ, but “to trust in what they are doing” and/or “trust in what they are saying.”
* That elders ought to teach people, not to trust in Christ, but “to trust in themselves trusting in Christ.”
* That elders ought to “tell (people) that their salvation hinges on whether they say the magic words just right.”
* And/or that elders ought to “tell (people) that their salvation hinges on whether they…have their face looking ‘just so’ while they say (magic words).”
* That elders ought to “tell (people) that they are apostate if they get some detail about justification wrong.”
Did anybody else read my comment #6 above to be teaching any (or all!) of these things? I can’t imagine that anybody else did.
Which brings us back to the main point. Lane and I think that churches that can’t confess justification by faith alone in Christ alone (the PCA’s membership questions as one representative example) are apostate. Mr. Wilson does not.
Robert K. said,
October 12, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Wilson and crew got pulled over in full cross-dressing glory over at De Regno Christi. (Jordan was weaving in the lane; designated driver Wilson must have had a few himself otherwise he wouldn’t have allowed that to happen).
greenbaggins said,
October 13, 2007 at 9:42 am
Right, Jeff. Not quite sure where Wilson is coming from. I see you saying that part of justifying faith is *assent* to the doctrinal truth. Wilson himself affirms that assensus is part of saving faith. That is really all I see you saying in number 6.
Dave Rockwell said,
October 13, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I think we are too stuck on the visible church. It is pointless to determine whether a church is apostate or corrupt based on what a person sees or hears in the preaching or the practices of the visible church. Why? Because the kingdom of God is an invisible kingdom. The true church is an invisible church. It is what is inside a person’s heart. “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
There are churches in the PCA who teach and practice error on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. There are PCA churches that don’t teach or preach error, yet tolerate those who do. What does this say about the church and the individual members and the denomination as a whole? If we only think corporately along visible church lines, who is apostate – who is corrupt? The church? The member? The denomination? All three?
The PCA affirmed the WCF in its report. But, there are still churches that teach and practice errors especially on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Those teaching elders are not admitting their errors or views as was recommended in the report. So, is the denomination considered corrupt or apostate at this point in time? Are we a hypocritical denomination? Affirming the truth but allowing the teaching of error? Should a member leave if the denomination is considered apostate or corrupt? Does being a member of an apostate or corrupt denomination corrupt the individual or make one also an apostate? Do you see how confusing and twisted things can get if we only think in terms of the visible corporate church?
One other thing – in Wilson’s post, he states that we are “infused” with Christ’s righteousness. That should sound off the alarm bells, folks. The gospel hinges on the doctrine of the “imputation” of Christ’s righteousness. The difference between imputation and infusion is the difference between eternal life and eternal condemnation. This is where the FV falls. End of discussion. They are not brothers as the PCA report states; they are false teachers teaching another gospel. And, Paul tells us not to tolerate a false gospel not even for an hour. How can the PCA sit back and ignore that warning?
greenbaggins said,
October 13, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Not so quick on infusion, there, David. We are infused with Christ’s righteousness. The thing we need to remember is that that occurs in sanctification only, not in justification (and Wilson agrees with this).
Dave Rockwell said,
October 13, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Lane,
When God looks at you what does He see? Christ’s imputed or infused righteousness? Please define infusion.
It is my understanding that when God looks at me, He sees the full imputed righteousnessness of Christ. When we are born again, our old nature dies and we are given a new nature. We are made a new creature – the old has passed away. Sanctification is knowing, reckoning, and yielding to that new nature that has been imputed not infused.
I no longer live; Christ lives in me. I died – I am crucified with Christ. So, what is left of me to be infused? I was raised with Christ. When something is infused, doesn’t that mean that something is put into something? If my sinful nature is infused with Christ’s righteousness, then doesn’t that mean that holiness is put into something unholy? Are you saying that it is possible to put new wine into old wineskins? That is infused righteousness which is spiritually impossible as Christ taught us in that parable. And that is the fatal flaw of the FV. They are trying to pour NT teaching into OT wineskins.
My righteousness is not my righteousness at all; Isaiah teaches that our righteousness is as filthy rags. Rather, it is Christ’s imputed righteousness that justifies, sanctifies and glorifies me and it is freely given by His grace.
greenbaggins said,
October 13, 2007 at 5:24 pm
David, you are directing your energy at the wrong target here. There isn’t a single Reformed theologian who doesn’t acknowledge that when the Holy Spirit enters us, that we receive the infusion of Christ’s righteousness. That is why the distinction between justification and sanctification is so important. Justification only has reference to imputation. Sanctification has reference to infusion. Read any Reformed ST you want, and this is what you’ll find. God doesn’t just leave us in a state of having Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. He then rewrites the inside of our “book” so that the inside starts to look like the outside. This is not FV teaching. It is standard Reformed theology.
Robert K. said,
October 13, 2007 at 7:31 pm
I’m not aware of the language of infusion being used regarding sanctification. I’m just talking about language itself. I just glanced through Calvin, Turretin, A. A. Hodge, the WCF, Berkhof, and others and didn’t see that language used. It has a sound of being off-the-mark. Infusion is such a loaded word I wonder if you really mean to use it to describe what can be described using other language, and *is* described using other language by Reformed Theology in general?
magma2 said,
October 14, 2007 at 11:47 am
If the language of infusion concerning sanctification, I would think that Lane could provide any number of citations from Reformed sources. I confess, it does sound a bit amiss to me, but maybe I’m wrong?
Dave Rockwell said,
October 15, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Would you be able to give me some those citations, Lane. I have been searching and cannot find any.
My understanding of sanctification is that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us at justification and the Holy Spirit comes to live in the believer. The problem is that our temple needs to be cleaned out. God gives us the illustration of gold being refined and silver being purified. The gold and silver (Christ’s righteousness and holiness) our new nature is there but the dross of our old nature has to be removed through trials, tests, and discipline. That is why Jesus tells us to take up our cross daily, crucify the old man, and walk in the Spirit so that we do not satisfy the desires of the flesh.
Please define infusion and explain to me how that applies to sanctification. In what way are we infused?
We had Adam’s nature imputed to us – was his nature ever infused in us? When and how?