Why Don’t They Get It?
November 5, 2007 at 5:32 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy)
Wilkins’s answer to number 8 is basically an assertion that he doesn’t contradict the Standards. So, the FV guys say that saying what is true of non-elect covenant members is not in contradiction to the Standards. The critics say that the FV guys are contradicting the standards. How can we judge who is correct? Let’s flesh out the question a bit more. In introducing a new idea (that of non-elect covenant member), the FV has taken it in a direction that actually does contradict the Standards.
First of all, it is important to note that Wilkins not only does not repudiate anything in his article in the Federal Vision book, he here actively reaffirms what he wrote there, especially pages 58-61 of that article.
Secondly, his lightly tossing aside the judgment of charity without any argumentation means that he is introducing new teaching (for, on the judgment of charity argument, the non-elect do *not* have justification, sanctification, adoption, or any other ordo salutis benefit) on the basis of something that he cannot prove. If he cannot prove the judgment of charity argument wrong, then his position is not proven. I do hope that it is obvious that if the judgment of charity argument is correct in our reading of Paul, then the FV’s reading of those passages cannot possibly be correct. Here I want to reiterate some of the support for the judgment of charity understanding of Paul. I will do it simply by linking these great words. It is similar to an argument I had with someone about Peter Leithart’s exegesis of Psalms and Prophets. We wound up both saying that Leithart’s exegesis was speculative. If that is the case, then why should I be asked to believe that someone’s interpretation of the WCF, based on speculation, is accurate?
In order for Wilkins’s argument to work, there has to be a rigid boundary between the elect and the non-elect. There cannot be any possibility of one becoming the other. Otherwise, the perseverance of the saints will indeed be compromised. However, that boundary is precisely what is fudged when these benefits are said to be common to both elect and non-elect. Again, it doesn’t matter whether someone says that there are differences between the two. The fact is that ordo salutis benefits are being ascribed to the non-elect.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
black&tanintheam said,
November 6, 2007 at 7:21 am
Secondly, his lightly tossing aside the judgment of charity without any argumentation means that he is introducing new teaching (for, on the judgment of charity argument, the non-elect do *not* have justification, sanctification, adoption, or any other ordo salutis benefit) on the basis of something that he cannot prove.
Lane, I do not believe Wilkins lightly dismisses here. He says that this argument is not compelling to him. “Paul may be saying this *charitably* but it’s not compelling to me,” is what he seems to be saying.
there has to be a rigid boundary between the elect and the non-elect. There cannot be any possibility of one becoming the other. Otherwise, the perseverance of the saints will indeed be compromised. However, that boundary is precisely what is fudged when these benefits are said to be common to both elect and non-elect.
Wilkins denies any *commonality*. He says (as do the other FVers) that there is a difference. Never the twain shall meet but that something real and true happens in baptism. He deals with this in # 2.
There is a true and real transaction that takes place in baptism that obligates the subject to a persevering faith. And there is something in baptism that threatens the subject for unbelief. Take this scenario that I have posted before (with no response).
For instance, Joe Bubblegum hears you preach the gospel and responds. He is baptised and under your tutelage he is discipled. Within a period of four years he yearns for his former life of girls, girls, girls. He leaves the church and never (to this day) returns. [Now, this is the case with my former pastor’s good high school chum.] Here is my take on this. We’ll call him Gavin (for that is his name). Gavin was married to Christ (really) and ate with Christ quarterly (truly). Gavin truly and really broke the covenant. He is an apostate son. Why? Because he was baptised. Is this not the case? Yes, it is. When Gavin dies and if he dies in rebellion to Christ he will be judged an apostate son. Why? Because he was baptised.
Now, imagine another scenario. Gavin never got baptised. Let’s change the gender and name. Her name is Gina. She has attended church and “celebrated” the supper for the past five years (this eating and drinking is malediction). She has a profession of faith but no baptism. She is waiting til her children (all teens) come to faith. Now, to be sure, this church is not reformed in any Calvinistic sense. Here is what I say. She is not married to Christ even though she has a profession of faith. She will tell my mother that she loves Jesus (although her heart displays malice and disdain for others) and serves in the church ad nauseum but I say she is not united to Christ. There is no covenant to break here. Truly, really, or otherwise. Why? B/c she has not been baptised. Now, contra Gavin, Gina will not die an apostate daughter. She will not suffer the same wrath as Gavin. Why? B/c she was not baptised. A person’s personal faith means nada without the Church’s thumbs up and blessing in the sacrament. This is the rule. Are there exceptions? Yes. But those are not the norm, they are exceptions. The rule is “no Church as madre, no God as padre.”
This is the power of the sacraments. Indulge me, again. Our baptist brethren do not apply the sign to infants because of their ordo salutis. The sign belongs to no one but those of faith. I feel we TRs are no less baptistic than they when we apply the sign. I am left scratching my head so often when I see cov’t children baptised. “So, what just happened? I know you went to lengths telling me what didn’t happen but I’m not sure what to believe did happen.” Here’s what didn’t happen: “This baptism does not save this baby. This baptism does not take away this child’s sins. This baptism does not unite her to Jesus. This baptism does not regenerate this child…ad infinitum & nauseum. BUUUUUUT this baptism does acknowledge that when this child comes to faith all of God’s promises held out to her and her parents will be true of her. In this baptism today God promises these parents to save their child when she comes of age and believes. God promises today to take away her sins, to unite her to Christ, to regenerate her and give her all the benefits that befit a child of God when she believes. Amen and amen. Let us pray….” (to be continued)
Now, as to the above, this is what is preached in every non FV church in the PCA. I hear it regularly. And it truly breaks my heart. Here’s why. What are we saying that Baptists are not? Our reformed baptisms are nothing less than baptist dedications. They are. We emasculate Christ and dehydrate the element. We end up saying NOTHING less than an evangelist at a crusade. “If you will but come to Jesus he will…..” The only thing missing is water. Why not (I know why not, it’s rhetoric) baptise everyone and say, “OK, when you get around to believing this stuff…” How is what we do different than our baptist brethren? You might want to say “much in every way” but your dehydrating the element negates your wishes. Here is what we end up saying, “God has blessed this family. You parents are blessed. God has given you a covenant child to raise into the faith. Pray for her. Teach her. Discipline her. She is not a Christian yet, though. She must make your faith her own. She is privileged in every way. She will hear the Gospel from a young age and be taught all the principles of our faith. How blessed she truly is…”…anon. Actually, I lied. This was a baptist dedication ceremony.
Now, I can hear you retort. But I have to confess, b/c of what I hear we believe about baptism, I truly do not know why we apply the water. Truly I don’t. Unless it actually means something. Unless it actually threatens something. Unless the sacrament actually means something sacred (save some future desperate-hopeful-finger-crossing-hope) we are refined baptists.
…continued…10 years pass and she apostasizes and dies unrepentant. At her funeral, the same pastor who said the above says, “Remember all that stuff I said about this child when she came to faith because she was baptised? Never mind.”
If there were something for you to address here, it’s this.
1)What is the difference b/t a Baptist’s dedication and the PCA?
2)Is the Church the normal dispenser of salvation per the sacraments?
3)As per Lusk’s book, is it true that the sacraments belong only to the faithful (and so infants are baptised)? That is, baptism (as the Baptists affirm) belongs only to one who has faith. If this is true, then paedobaptism is false. That is, if the sign only belongs to those who have faith, then we are amiss for baptising people with no faith.
If it’s only water, then we of all people are most to be pitied.
Keith LaMothe said,
November 6, 2007 at 8:47 am
“A person’s personal faith means nada without the Church’s thumbs up and blessing in the sacrament.”
I’m not sure what position you’re coming from. Are you speaking of the non-elect here? Or are the elect and regenerate not members of the covenant until they are baptized in water?
pduggie said,
November 6, 2007 at 9:12 am
I guess my questions are in the zone of a range of seriousness with which a ‘judgment of charity’ is offered.
On the one hand you have Bob Godfrey reminding us that Luther told Melancthon that the word of God to HIM was “your sins are forgiven”.
In the middle, you might have “awakened sinner, your sins are forgiven”
Somewhere else in the middle, you have someone saying, “While I can’t really know your heart, and it certainly may be the case that you could be a sniveling hypocrite (and you better not be), I know that IF you really mean the stuff you say, I have the right to say “you sins are forgiven”. That is my charitable judgment of you. Now go home and think about that.
And then at the bottom, you have another guest preacher we had at tenth saying “I could say ‘your sins are forgiven’ all day long but it wouldn’t DO anything”
The word of God to YOU, Ephesian, is that you are elect.
R. F. White said,
November 6, 2007 at 10:33 am
pduggie, on what basis would you say that Luther made his statement or that Paul made his? For example, would you say that Luther or Paul made their assertions on the basis of their knowledge of the registry of the New Jerusalem? Presumably not. Ok, if not, what is the basis of their assertions? I want to understand your position.
Andrew Duggan said,
November 6, 2007 at 11:07 am
Paul wrote:
Can you say to your wheat field, “you hare my wheat field” even though it’s got a lot of tares interspersed? Sure you can, but that doesn’t make the tares wheat, and all of us individual stalks of wheat better be checking to see if we’re wheat (as evidenced by our fruit), and not tares. Can’t you allow for the possibly that tares might look something like wheat especially during the spring of their lives?
That I think is a big difference.
You seem to be advocating telling people, “you’re in the wheat field, therefore you are WHEAT”. I think Jesus’ message to the Pharisees and Jews was just the opposite.
Daniel Kok said,
November 6, 2007 at 12:45 pm
In the morning service the pastor preaches from Hosea 1 and tells the congregation ‘head for head’ that they are ‘Lo-Ammi’ because this is what the prophet says to Israel.
In the afternoon service the pastor preaches from Ephesians 1 and tells the congregation ‘head for head’ that they are elect because this is what Paul tells the Ephesians.
Everybody feels pretty good because they are now reprobate and elect in Christ, the elect and reprobate one. Karl Barth would be proud!
kjsulli said,
November 6, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Karl Barth would be proud!
And humble.
pduggie said,
November 6, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I think these are largely incommensurate universes of discourse. The words apply in different realms.
Ephesians is a letter to a visible church.
Hosea is a covenant lawsuit against apostate Israel. If the SJC wanted to read it to a Presbytery they were putting under the ban, that would work. (and since Hosea envisions the recovery of of the wayward, I’m not sure it works for reprobation)
The parable of the tares is primarily addressed to those concerned with rooting out all evil in the world. Don’t do it, because the world is full of tares, though it is the Fathers field.
But we know the church needs to have tares taken out of it in the process of history, not just at the end.
Ephesians says “You’re in Christ: count yourself elect in Christ”. The wheat field isn’t in view.
I detect in this a desire to hold an entire system of theology in ones head at the same time all the time. I’m not sure that’s desirable, even if possible.
pduggie said,
November 6, 2007 at 3:55 pm
“pduggie, on what basis would you say that Luther made his statement or that Paul made his? For example, would you say that Luther or Paul made their assertions on the basis of their knowledge of the registry of the New Jerusalem?”
Faith in the power of God’s Word to do its work, and not return to him void.
R. F. White said,
November 6, 2007 at 4:10 pm
pduggie, Ok. Faith to do what work? I’m not trying to be cute. What was that work?
Jeff Cagle said,
November 6, 2007 at 4:39 pm
@ BlackandTan:
WCoF says this (28.5-6):
For my part, I would see these strictures as important so as to avoid the error of the Pharisees in believing that circumcision salvation (cf. Rom. 2.25-29; Gal. 5.2-6).
What is your take on these two paragraphs? Do you agree or disagree that the efficacy of Baptism is not tied to the moment of its administration?
Also, in your example, why does Gina’s lack of baptism cause her to not be united to Christ, rather than her lack of faith (which leads not only to the lack of baptism, but also to the malice and false service)?
And finally, imagine a third person, Gloria, who regularly attends a hip non-denominational church that downplays baptism. OR perhaps it baptizes people, but has no membership. Either way, Gloria fails to become a baptized member of the visible church, but in every other *objective* way appears to be a follower of Christ. Would you hold that Gloria is not saved?
There are a lot of Glorias out there (which is why the Church needs a lot of reforming…).
Jeff
Jeff Cagle said,
November 6, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Sorry, the HTML dropped my “if and only if” sign:
“…of the Pharisees in believing that circumcision entails salvation and vice-versa…”
Andrew Duggan said,
November 6, 2007 at 9:10 pm
And one of the ways of not rooting out the tares, is by not using the caveats about elect/not elect when addressing the church. So although the tares are in the Father’s field they are not still not wheat and will be burned in the fire in the end. Did they get rained on while in the field, and enjoy the warm and light of the sun? Yup, they did, but they still get burned up in the end. All the good the tares receive just make the flame of their burning hotter in the end.
Your idea that parable is primarily about leaving the tares alone seems like a pretext to me. Certainly it’s one of the things that parable teaches, but another is what happens to the tares at the end. You can ignore the warning that is thereby attached, but that doesn’t negate that warning.
One of the major problem for the Pharisees was not that they didn’t believe in the promises of God, it’s that they took them and Him for granted.
Travis said,
November 8, 2007 at 6:20 am
Sorry for the delayed correspondence. I was unable to sign on. And thank you very much for your response.
#2“A person’s personal faith means nada without the Church’s thumbs up and blessing in the sacrament.”
I’m not sure what position you’re coming from. Are you speaking of the non-elect here? Or are the elect and regenerate not members of the covenant until they are baptized in water?
What I mean to say is that the church has been given the authority of Christ for binding and loosing. Baptism is a kind of binding. It affirms the professor’s faith. Likewise, were a person not to give a credible profession, the sacrament would be withheld. The church has the authority to give the thumbs up or thumbs down.
Travis said,
November 8, 2007 at 6:50 am
#11
Thank you, Jeff for responding to my queries.
What is your take on these two paragraphs? Do you agree or disagree that the efficacy of Baptism is not tied to the moment of its administration?
I take this paragraph to combat the Romanist who dehydrates the sacrament saying subsequential sinning nullifies the grace at baptism. “Not tied to” enhances the power of God’s grace in the right use of the ordinance to follow one all the days of his life. Rather than negate the administration of baptism (which is what your reading does), baptism’s grace is to be rested in all of one’s life. Got baptism? Got Jesus.
Secondly,
Your third believer example, I believe, is an exception to the rule. Normally to have the sign is to have the reality. Normally to participate in the ordinances of the church is to belong to the reality to which they point. Normally. Were I to meet Gloria at a Bible conference and find out that she has “faith” (remember, it’s mere profession) I would lovingly warn her of the seriousness of neglecting the sign. In fact, I would go so far to say that without baptism (which is God’s response to her faith, conferring to her all the benefits of Christ….here let me quote the WSC so you’ll feel more at ease.)
Q. 85. What does God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse, due to us for sin?
A. To escape the wrath and curse of God, due to us for sin, God requires of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption.
Note that the WCF does not allow for faith merely to be an end-all-beat-all.
The tertium quid here is the sacraments. There are three things that God requires for him to forgive us:
1) faith
2) repenance
3) the sacraments
Jeff,
Were Gloria to attend your Church (BTW say hi to Steve and Mike for me) and your church was celebrating communion and were she to read on your bulletin that all who “profess faith in Christ and have been baptised”….and she approaches one of your elders and says,”Um, ’scuse me. I’m visiting from out of town and read this here. Does this mean that I can’t take communion?”
“Have you been baptised?”
“No.”
At this point, I would hope that your elder would stick to the by-laws. But I also hope that there would be a double whammy that morning: baptism and communion. For according to most PCA bulletins, you can’t have one without the other. (I am aware that BCO 58-4 only stipulates the profession.)
What if on the last day the majority of those “hipsters” stood before Christ and heard him say, “I never knew you”?