On Covenantal Union
October 25, 2007 at 11:22 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)
Wilkins’s response to declaration 6 is the subject of this post.
From the very first two sentences, we see something quite revealing:
I do indeed believe that baptism unites the baptized in covenant with Christ. As I mentioned above, however, baptism is never efficacious apart from the exercise of saving faith on the part of the recipient.
Of course, this begs the question of when such people receive saving faith. He says that he rejects the notion of “baptismal regeneration” if what is meant by that is “that all who are baptized are, head for head, given saving faith and effectually called.” However, this statement in turn begs the question: for those who are given saving faith and effectually called, when are they given that faith? I have a hunch that he would say, “at their baptism.” Now, I am certainly not going to deny that saving faith is given to some (maybe even many) at the time-point of baptism. God gives saving faith in His timing. That can be before, during, or after baptism, no matter what age the person is.
But that is not really the issue I wanted to bring up with these two sentences. What Wilkins is saying is that baptism efficaciously unites the baptized person in covenant with Christ regardless of whether they have faith, but that such baptism is not efficacious for the remission of sin apart from the exercise of saving faith. The first sentence clearly indicates that being in covenant with Christ is effected by baptism. Period. But the nature of that covenant with Christ is not ultimately saving. This drives a wedge between covenant membership and the remission of sins (such a wedge as Wilkins does not want elsewhere in his writings: see _Federal Vision_, pp. 58ff, where covenant membership implies forgiveness of sins). N.B. I am assuming that the efficaciousness of which Wilkins speaks is the efficaciousness of baptism, as the creed says, for the forgiveness of sins (and which the WCF would chalk up to sacramental language).
Paul appears to attribute justification and sanctification to all the members of the visible church (I Cor. 1:30-31; 6:9-11, etc.). At this point, I understand that Paul views the visible church as the realm of salvation (because it is the body of Christ, the household, family, and kingdom of God, according to WCF XXV.2). This “justification and sanctification” is not infallibly saving, however, since Paul warns these same people against the possibility of falling away.
This is completely illogical. Wilkins is thinking in Aristotelian categories here, failing to account for the Boolean “null set.” Just because someone warns you against falling away from justification and sanctification doesn’t mean that someone actually can fall away from justification and sanctification. Wilson’s rhetoric of putting up a “beware of the cliff” sign in the middle of Kansas notwithstanding, the whole point of Paul’s warnings, as they apply to the elect, is that such warnings will prevent them from falling away. As it applies to the non-elect, if they “fall away,” they demonstrate that they were never of the true Israel in the first place. There is no such thing as a lessened version of justification and sanctification in the NT. Wilkins’s position assumes that there is. Falling away from a lessened version of justification is still Arminian, even if one believes that one cannot fall away from the “strong” version of justification. He is still asserting that one can divide up ordo salutis benefits in such a way that someone can get one or two that are “lessened” without getting them all.
If I am wrong in my reading, then these texts could only be speaking of the decretally elect
I just demonstrated what application such a text would have to the non-elect, without taking his interpretation of the texts. Is logic something that we should just throw out the window when the FV comes to town? By his argument, anyone who takes a different view than he does is misreading Paul, because their interpretation could not apply to all of Paul’s readers. I wish he would come out and say such. Because dancing around saying that there is room for both views in the PCA is not true. Such texts say to the non-elect that their condemnation will be all the greater, because they partook of the administration of the covenant of grace (though not the substance).
But I fail to see how this covenantal “justification and sanctification” contradicts the teaching of the Confession at these points.
The confession says that you cannot have one saving benefit without having them all. The ordo salutis is unbreakable and unified. What he has to assume is that this covenantal “justification and sanctification” have nothing to do with the real thing. There cannot be one point of overlap between the “lessened” version and the “strong” version. Otherwise, someone who has the “strong” version might morph into someone who has only the “lessened” version. There cannot be any “flowback” if the system is to remain Calvinistic. But if there is flowback, then there is no reason why someone who is truly justified might not fall away. The problem here is precisely at the nexus point between this supposed covenantal justification and decretal justification. Why use the term “justification” to describe both situations? I have demonstrated that the support that the FV uses from Paul is not proven at all, and that their logic is flawed in their interpretation of Paul. If so, then there is no reason to use the term “justification” in relation to people who are only under the administration of the covenant, but are decretally non-elect. This only confuses the issue at best, and confounds two disparate ideas at worst.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
Jason J. Stellman said,
October 25, 2007 at 12:38 pm
One thing I’ve always wondered about is, What about those people who are merely “covenantally justified and sanctified,” and who never actually fall away?
The whole nomenclature of all these “covenantal” categories seems to assume eventual apostacy to that it can later be said that they actually fell away from something real. But what if they don’t fall away? What will they hear on judgment day?
Jason J. Stellman said,
October 25, 2007 at 12:40 pm
That should be “so” rather than “to” in paragraph 2, line 2. Sorry about that….
greenbaggins said,
October 25, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Wilson answers this question by saying that they go straight to hell. I’m not sure what basis he has for saying that, but it is what he says.
Jason J. Stellman said,
October 25, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Wow, that must suck. Or maybe I’ll find out myself that it does suck if I end up being one of those “covenantally elect” guys. Did he happen to mention the antidote? How much covenant faithfulness do I have to accrue so that the joke’s not on me?
greenbaggins said,
October 25, 2007 at 1:18 pm
The other difficulty here is that the FV defines the visible church as *the church.* If it is, and decretally non-elect but covenantally “faithful” people stay in the church, which, according to their definition, is some kind of salvation, then that should throw into question their entire paradigm. On what basis are they consigned to hell?
Jeff Hutchinson said,
October 25, 2007 at 1:24 pm
At the Knox Colloquium one of the faithful men asked that very question. Here was the response, as I understand it:
FV: To answer your question, let us ask you, have you been faithful to your wife?
A: Well, not according to Matthew 5 (”I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart”).
FV: That’s not what we’re asking. Have you ever given her biblical ground to divorce you?
A: By God’s grace, no, I haven’t.
FV: Well, then, you’ve been covenantally faithful.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
October 25, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Sorry, #6 is with reference to #4, not #5!
its.reed said,
October 25, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Ref. #7:
And Jeff, as you’ve assumed the mantle for the FV here :-), how does that help me?
This is one of the markers that led me to conclude early on that the Christian trying to apply the FV necessarily falls into a works measurement mentality. My only hope is Jesus + my covenant faithfulness (I sure hope its enough, or I may be surprised with Jason).
Jeff Hutchinson said,
October 25, 2007 at 1:49 pm
It all comes down to this: There is both a coming Judgment for ALL and a coming Resurrection. Every sane Christian knows and believes this. BUT WHICH COMES FIRST?
Do believers appear before the Great Judge already resurrected and glorified, or not? Do believers appear before Him already as a “sheep” (as opposed to a “goat”), or not?
NTW, Leithart, Lusk, etc. etc. all get this horribly wrong.
Jason J. Stellman said,
October 25, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Great point, Jeff. I’ve often pointed out that before man’s works will be considered he will already be placed in one of two categories: sheep or goats.
Our Standards speak of the final judgment of the elect, that once God’s mercy has been glorified by our open acknowledgement and acquittal, we will turn around and help him judge the wicked.
Confusion on this point can be traced back, of course, to that great theologian Keith Green in his seminal “The Sheep and the Goats.” His legacy lives on, alas!
Daniel Kok said,
October 25, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Re: #4:
For the FV it is not how much ‘covenantal faithfulness’ you have accrued (since they generally reject the merit concept) but whether or not you are covenantally faithful to the end (perseverance of the saints).
Steve Wilkins - “Legacy of the Half-way Covenant” AAPC 2002
“You are married, that’s a real relationship, but if you don’t ever speak to your wife after the ceremony, you’ve got a problem and your relationship is no good and it will not survive. If you are not faithful to love and honor and obey God, your relationship will die. Does that mean there was no real relationship? No, you were real, you were unfaithful and you lost what you had.”
Later, in a Q&A session he states:
“As long as you abide, Jesus says, you are fine. If you don’t abide in me, you are not fine, you are lost. Now does that mean there is no assurance, of course not. I hope that I have shown and others have shown. No the ground of assurance is Christ. That’s the only hope that you can have any true and right assurance.”
greenbaggins said,
October 25, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Hmm. Looks like Wilson and Wilkins differ on this point.
Daniel Kok said,
October 25, 2007 at 2:27 pm
For me the problem with Wilkins is not his belief in ‘persevering to the end’ or having a real relationship with Christ and falling away. The problem is that he concludes that one who falls away must have been sanctified, justified but somehow fell short of glorification.
Yes, we say with him that our assurance is Christ or in Christ. But how do I know if I will remain in Him? - “As long as you abide, Jesus says, you are fine” I can have all the assurance in Christ I want but if the church or some other Christian or my conscience tells me that I am not abiding in Him, is my assurance still there or does it now have to be regained?
Jason J. Stellman said,
October 25, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Yeah, there’s a leap from “Paul predicates upon the visible church certain blessings” to “Paul predicates upon each and every member of the visible church each and every blessing.”
When you take that route, you pretty much have to come up with covenantal versions of each element of the ordo in order to make sense of the data.
Instead, it makes more sense to say that, though Paul attributes saving blessings on all professing Christians indiscriminately, he does so knowing that the local church is a mixed multitude with some wheat and some chaff.
In other words, hang on to that visible/invisible church distinction….
Daniel Kok said,
October 25, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Well there is a covenantal version of the ordu is there not? Ordo in promissary (sp.?) form but not in actual reality. At times it sounds like the FV is simply asserting the latter but Wilkins makes it clear it is both/and for all members of the covenant.
Daniel Kok said,
October 25, 2007 at 3:17 pm
For example, at the original AAPC, Wilkins says that Jude 5 tells us that Israel was saved and lost their salvation. And we reply, yes they were saved, saved from Egypt and the tyranny of Pharaoh. But Jude does not say that they lost their salvation but that they were destroyed. After all, they never came back under Pharaoh’s tyranny but remained free even when they were wandering in the desert.
To Wilkins credit he says he doesn’t know if this meant that they were saved in the sense we commonly think of it. But a Reformed minister should know. And the critics are right to point out that elsewhere he makes it clear that those who fall away are really justified, sanctified etc.