A Preliminary Report

July 22, 2009 at 8:28 am (Biblical Theology, Books (reviews and recommendations), Theological Encyclopedia)

I have not yet finished this book. Yet I wanted to give readers some idea of what the book is like, as it is one of the more important books to be published this year.

Especially important is his discussion of theological encyclopedia. Again, for those unfamiliar with the expression, theological encyclopedia is the discussion of the inter-relationship and inter-dependence of the various theological disciplines on each other. So, the relationship of biblical theology and systematic theology, for instance (a really hot issue in the secondary lit these days), is an issue of theological encyclopedia. The last important full-scale treatment of the subject was Richard Muller’s The Study of Theology, found in this volume. My overall reaction to Gamble’s treatment is that his practice works out better than the theory. In practice, Gamble is outstanding at allowing all the disciplines to impact one another. He will quote Turretin right next to modern commentaries. In practice, I think Gamble succeeds admirably in being a generalist theologian. His systemati categories are informed by biblical theology, and yet are not inimical to traditional systematic categories.

In his theory, I would agree with a lot of what he says. For instance, he is very clear that all the disciplines are dependent on Scripture. To my mind, no one said this better than Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper argued that all the disciplines are united by their common tie to Scripture: Exegesis explains the meaning of Scripture in individual passages, and starts to tie these threads together; Systematic Theology speaks of the meaning of Scripture as a whole; Apologetics propounds the truths of the aforementioned disciplines to the unbeliever, seeking to undermine the presuppositions of unbelief and show the consistency of Christian presuppositions to the Christian worldview; Church History examines the impact of Scripture through the ages; and Practical Theology examines the outworking of Scripture in people’s lives. The principle of inter-dependence is itself dependent on the one uniting fact of Scripture. Gamble would definitely agree with this.

I would differ with Gamble on some of the details of how this works out in the specific inter-relationships of disciplines. For instance, Gamble wants to restructure Systematic Theology so that the loci are more closely based on biblical theology. He seems to imply that traditional systematic theology’s categories are not categories derived from the biblical text itself, although he usually stops short of saying this. Nevertheless, Gamble is careful to distance himself from an attempt to swallow up ST in BT. I have zero objection to letting BT influence ST. However, I see no particular problem with ST as it has traditionally been formulated. I hold that ST, in turn, has to be allowed a place at the table in exegesis and in BT. We do not come to exegesis or BT in a presuppositionless way. Furthermore, those presuppositions are systematic theological in character. In the forthcoming Festschrift for David Wells, I will be arguing that Vos himself struck just this happy balance (Vern Poythress has also argued this in a recent WTJ article).

I have so far read through chapter 14 (through page 276). I have certainly enjoyed it greatly, and have found his discussion stimulating. It will not be possible to discuss issues of theological encyclopedia without consulting Gamble’s highly nuanced positions.

3 Comments

Why Theonomy Is Biblically-Theologically Wrong

March 29, 2009 at 3:08 pm (Biblical Theology, Law)

I am going to post a few things on why I think theonomy does not do justice to the biblical theology of Scripture. Included will be several exegetical posts on various passages as well as more general biblical-theological directions.

First, let’s be clear about our terms. Theonomy may be defined as a theological viewpoint which sees the Old Testament civil laws as applicable in today’s government. It is NOT a viewpoint which sees the Old Testament ceremonial laws or the sacrificial system as still in force. This is often confused in people’s minds. The word itself comes from two Greek words: theos, which means “God,” and nomos, which means “law.” Theonomists utterly oppose any attempt for man to make up law for himself. As such, it is opposed to autonomy (self-law). It is also opposed to the two kingdoms approach of many Reformed folk today.

Now, I have to lay down a qualification first. The qualification is that I do agree with theonomists on many points. For instance, I do not believe that the general structure of human law should be autonomous. I believe that God has given the moral law in nature, not only in Scripture. This is proven in Scripture in Romans 2:12-16. Now, it is important to exegete this passage properly. The phrase “without the law” does not mean “destitute of law” but rather it means that the Gentiles did not have the law delivered to them on Sinai. Verse 14 clarifies what Paul means: Gentiles have a law unto themselves. This does NOT mean autonomy, but rather the moral law written on their hearts, as verse 15 explicitly says. The Westminster Confession of Faith gets at this when it says that the moral law was given to Adam as a covenant of works. If it was given to Adam, then it was given to all humanity. This is the concept of natural law. It is plain, then, that if a Gentile nation, having not the law as delivered on Sinai, yet rules itself according to many of the same principles as the Ten Commandments, then we can be sure that they are governing themselves according to the moral law as imprinted on the human heart, or natural law.

With that qualification out of the way, we can now look at the trajectory of biblical-theological development from Old Testament to New Testament, and we may come to this very important conclusion: the trajectory of Old Testament Israel does not direct us to modern day governments, but to the church. Now, presumably, many theonomists would claim that the trajectory goes from Old Testament Israel to the church and to modern-day government, whereas critics would say that modern-day governments are not included. Let’s look at a few passages to test this.

First up is the Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel of Matthew is rather clear (at least most scholars today have noted this feature) that Jesus relives Israel’s story. As Israel went down to Egypt, so Jesus went down to Egypt. As Israel was brought out of Egypt, so Jesus was called out of Egypt (see Matthew 2:15, quoting Hosea 11:1. Now the context of Hosea makes it quite clear that God is speaking about Israel. And yet Matthew uses the verse to refer to Jesus. How can this be on any other theory than that Jesus is the new Israel? Furthermore, as Israel was tempted 40 years in the wilderness, so Jesus was tempted 40 days in the wilderness (Matthew 4). As Israel came into the Promised Land led by Joshua (the Old Testament form of the name Jesus), so also Jesus leads the church into the new heavens and the new earth. In other words, Jesus is the way in which anyone has to be part of Israel. It is not outside of Jesus, but inside Jesus that we are now the faithful children of Abraham (as Galatians 3:9 makes clear).

Second up is Galatians 6:16. Now, much ink has been spilled over the question of how the word “and” is to be interpreted. If the word means “in addition to,” then the passage supports dispensationalism, as the Israel of God is a separate group from the “them” earlier in the verse. However, the word here almost certainly is epexegetical, which would be translated like this: “them, that is, upon the Israel of God.” In other words, on this interpretation, the Israel of God is the same group as the “them” earlier in the verse. Given the added testimony of 3:7 and 3:29, as well as the way in which he has been speaking about the “Jerusalem above” in 4:26-27, it seems clear that Paul does not have two groups in mind, but rather one. The people of faith are the true children of Abraham.

In other words, Jesus Christ is the apex of the trajectory of Old Testament Israel, and the church is in Christ. Therefore, it does not make sense to say that modern-day governments should run themselves according to principles that were given to Old Testament Israel as Old Testament Israel. Now, the theonomist will probably reply that the civil law of Old Testament Israel is of a piece with and is the outworking of the moral law given in the Ten Commandments. True, it is. But it is an outworking of the Ten Commandments for a particular place and people. The same principles apply in different ways in the church today. After all, as the result of the biblical-theological argumentation provided above, the principles of Old Testament Israel’s civil law ought to apply to the church today (by the arguments of theonomy) just as much as to the government. And I would agree, as long as we are talking about general equity. And yet the principles in the New Testament for church government say nothing of the sword. Instead, the weapons are spiritual, for we fight not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual enemies. Ephesians 6, by the way, is one reason why I believe the application of Old Testament Israel’s holy wars draws a straight line to spiritual warfare today in the church.

Lastly, there is nothing in Romans 13 that cannot be explained on the basis of natural law as explained above. The civil magistrate is there to punish evil. He is ordained by God to do that. The moral law has been implanted on his heart. Therefore, he should be a terror to those who do evil. However, it is not the civil magistrate’s job to execute a boy for cursing his parents (as was true in the Old Testament civil laws). It is the church’s job to instruct and to exercise church discipline. Nowhere in the New Testament does any writer say that the civil government is to rule itself according to Old Testament Israel’s civil law. Rather, every time the civil government is mentioned, it is in connection to the natural moral law.

816 Comments

Election in the New Testament – Part 1

January 31, 2009 at 2:04 pm (Bible, Biblical Theology, Covenant, Federal Vision, Heresy, New Testament, Reformed, Theology)

Posted by Bob Mattes

The Federal Vision folks like to say that their view is more Biblical, that they use words in a more Biblical way than classic Reformed formulations. Seven orthodox Reformed denominations have found otherwise, yet the Federal Vision myths persist. Dr. R. F. White wrote a comment on another thread that again struck at the heart of Federal Vision’s defective hermeneutic. In response to Jared, Dr. White wrote:

You [jared] say, “The only manner in which a reprobate can call himself elect is to the extent and duration that he is a member of the visible body.” – I reply, But we would agree that the most important issue is, does God call a reprobate person elect to the extent and duration that he is a member of the visible body, or, for that matter, does God call a reprobate person elect to any extent or duration at all?

This cuts to the heart of Federal Vision’s mythical “objective covenant” and reminded me of a post that I started over a year ago but never finished – until today. Bottom line question: Are there indeed people who are “elect” for a time by virtue of their membership in the visible church but lose that “election” through covenant unfaithfulness? In two letters or less, NO. The New Testament knows no such category of temporary “election,” either inside or outside of the visible church. Allow me to back up that statement.

Read the rest of this entry »

80 Comments

Joint Statement by WTS and Professor Enns

July 23, 2008 at 10:16 am (Bible, Biblical Theology, Difficult Scripture, Inerrancy, Old Testament, Reformed, Theology, Westminster standards)

Joint Statement by WTS and Professor Enns

July 23, 2008

The following statement is being posted per the instruction of Rev. Charles McGowan, Chairman of the Institutional Personnel Committee.

The administration and Prof. Peter Enns wish to announce that they have arrived at mutually agreeable terms, and that, as of 31 July, 2008, Prof. Enns will discontinue his service to Westminster Theological Seminary after fourteen years.

The administration wishes to acknowledge the valued role Prof. Enns has played in the life of the institution, and that his teaching and writings fall within the purview of Evangelical thought. The Seminary wishes Prof. Enns well in his future endeavors to serve the Lord.

Prof. Enns wishes to acknowledge that the leaders of the Seminary (administration and board) are charged with the responsibility of leading the seminary in ways that are deemed most faithful to the institution’s mission as a confessional Reformed Seminary.

Prof. Enns expresses his deep and sincere gratitude to the Lord for his education and years of service at Westminster Theological Seminary.

Past statements and documents

Statement of the Board – May 23, 2008
Official Theological Documents – April 24, 2008
A Communication to the Westminster Seminary Community – April 10, 2008
Message from the Board of Trustees– March 29, 2008

37 Comments

I Have Been Waiting For This!

May 20, 2008 at 3:09 pm (Biblical Theology, Books (reviews and recommendations))

Announcing the Festschrift for Richard Gaffin! It is edited by two very good friends of mine at WTS, Lane Tipton and Jeff Waddington. It is a veritable feast of biblical-theological reflections. You can see its table of contents here.

8 Comments

Back in Print

April 3, 2008 at 6:07 pm (Apologetics, Biblical Theology, Books (reviews and recommendations))

This book is a very important book linking apologetics and biblical theology.

3 Comments

Save Our Seminary: What’s Wrong with WTS Philly?

February 7, 2008 at 2:46 pm (Bible, Biblical Theology, Westminster standards)

The natural question that follows the statement Save Our Seminary, is: “From What?” The two most common responses are: (1) The school is facing a financial crisis and an urgent letter appealing to alumni and friends goes out asking them to save the seminary from having to close its doors. (2) Concerned alumni notice that the school is starting to slide down the slippery slope of Liberalism. Recent graduates are starting to proclaim the views of their professors that core doctrines like the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ and the inerrancy of Scripture are out-dated myths. A letter alerting the seminary’s constituency to this sad state of affairs goes out with the hope that pressure can be put on the administration to address these concerns.

As an alum of WTS (ThM, class of 1987) I was greatly relieved to learn that neither of these two concerns were presently applicable to my alma mater. Well then, exactly what is the nature of the peril confronting WTS? A recent graduate of the seminary took the initiative (on his own?) to put up a website, announcing that the seminary is in danger of being lost, and falling into the hands of some very unsavory characters. Two particular threats were highlighted. One, this group is upset with Peter Lillback, the president of WTS for being the keynote speaker at an event hosted by Vision Forum, which, we are told, is “an extremely dubious organization” that has, among other things, an extremely right-wing political agenda. Second, and given the nature of the fifty-plus responses, the really big concern centers around the Biblical Studies department at the seminary, especially the future status of Peter Enns, Doug Green and Michael Kelly. The recent departure of Steve Taylor appears to signal that additional purges are forthcoming.

As a result, the faculty, we are told most assuredly, is deeply divided and as such an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust pollutes the entire campus. The gravity of this situation, we are warned, cannot be ignored, and so we are told,

Many of us have tried repeatedly to address these problems, to little avail. Private conversations with faculty and administrators, verbal and written statements at our WTS exit interviews, letters and emails to board members and administrators, etc., have produced no publicly discernible change in the school’s atmosphere. While the faculty works out its theological disagreements, we alumni continue to receive only cheery letters from the seminary president that downplay the problems (while asking for our donations), while the current students have been told publicly not to concern themselves with the faculty’s internal debates (an attitude both impossible and undesirable, since teachers—and their firings—deeply affect the quality of one’s education).

If WTS continues on its present course, it may well end up as a tiny, ineffective institution talking to itself and hiding from the world. It may cut itself off from the living tradition that has nourished it, and from the larger church and world that need its unique contributions. If the decision-makers there continue to dismantle the Westminster that has meant so much to us, how will we be able to donate to the seminary, to endorse it, or to recommend it to potential students? We hope it does not come to that! We plead with the administration, faculty, and board of WTS to show a watching world how Christians behave when they disagree: not pretending that theological differences are unimportant, but not needlessly ripping the school to pieces, either. Surely Reformed orthodoxy can foster both stability and vitality.

It turns out, according to SOS, that the turd in the punch bowl was put there by the sad sacks in the departments of theology, church history and apologetics. These black-hatted villains are guilty of a vast array of crimes against humanity. They are charged with being unscholarly, avoiding the hard questions, conducting a witch-hunt, sowing division and most serious of all, demanding that the school fall in line with their ultra-strict and exceedingly narrow interpretation of the Westminster Standards.

What are we to make of this? A number of things come to mind. First in importance is that a course on the history of Westminster Seminary should be mandatory for all incoming students. The people behind this website and the majority of those who posted comments are terribly misinformed when it comes to the seminary’s history.

WTS was NOT founded to represent the broad “Reformed tradition” that the SOS crowd is advocating. It was founded to carry on the tradition of Old Princeton, which was lost when the seminary was reorganized in 1929. J. Ross Stevenson, who succeeded Francis Patton in 1914 as president of Princeton, sought to do with Old Princeton exactly what this misguided bunch wants to do to Westminster! The events that led to the changes at Old Princeton has been well documented by, among others, B. J. Longfield, who wrote, “The controversy at Princeton, Stevenson declared, stemmed not from doctrinal disagreement but rather from conflicting attitudes toward Princeton’s mission. What was at stake was whether Princeton would teach Old School scholasticism alone or tolerate divergent theological views. ‘We are the agency of the combined old school and new school,’ he argued, ‘and my ambition as President of the seminary is to have it represent the whole Presbyterian Church and not any particular faction of it.’” (‘The Presbyterian Controversy: Fundamentalists, Modernists, and Moderator,’ Oxford, 1991, p. 163.) Longfield also cites Stevenson claims that the doctrinal distinctives of Old Princeton would not change…immediately. But change they did and in short order as evidence by Emil Brunner being invited to be a visiting professor in 1938-39. Another recognized historian on the subject concurred and noted that the strife in the faculty centered around Machen’s insistence on Princeton maintaining Confessional Orthodoxy.

But Stevenson and Erdman placed the unity of the church above strict doctrinal orthodoxy and promoted peace and tolerance in the interest of the church’s mission. Machen stood for strict adherence to Christian orthodoxy as set forth in the Confession of Faith. Whereas Stevenson and Erdman reflected ‘the non-confessional character of American evangelicalism and the Victorian tendency to sentimentalize faith,’ Machen stood in the Old Princeton doctrinal tradition of Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield. Without an uncompromising belief in the true gospel, Machen insisted, the Presbyterian church would have no message to preach and could offer no hope to a lost world. (David C. Calhoun, Princeton Seminary: The Majestic Testimony 1869-1929, Banner of Truth, 1996.)

SOS complains about how much internal dissention this has created amongst the faculty and the larger seminary community and of course, the blame is placed exclusively on the previously mentioned sad sacks outside the department of Biblical Studies. This too has a very interesting parallel with Old Princeton. Longfield documented this.

Stevenson’s diagnosis of the conflict painted a radically different picture. ‘There has been in the faculty,’ he argued, ‘suspicion, distrust, dissension and division, and as I stated before the Assembly, in this Dr. Machen is involved.’ A censorious spirit among the faculty had given birth to a ‘divisive spirit among the students and . . . a departure from the historic position of the institution.’ In a statement Machen later contested, Stevenson condemned the League of Evangelical Students because it connected Princeton with ‘small institutions and sects which are committed to separation and secession.’ The solution to the controversy engulfing the seminary, he concluded, would be the triumph of a spirit of inclusivism, which, while not tolerating modernism, would make the seminary representative of the theology of the entire Presbyterian Church.” (Longfield, p. 166)

Another historian, and one not kindly disposed to Old School theology that Old Princeton stood for, described Machen and his followers as “extreme conservatives” and “ultra-strict confessionalists” (cf. Lefferts A. Loetscher, ‘The Broadening Church: A Study of theological issues in the Presbyterian church since 1869,’ University of Pennsylvania Press, 1954). Note the similarities in describing Machen and Co. and the language used by SOS to describe the threat posed by the meanies at WTS.

It does appear, judged by the stunning parallels between Old Princeton and today’s WTS, that the SOS crowd is actually advocating that WTS become what Princeton became after Machen and company left!

Wait! I am not done. There is another historical scenario that provides us with some instructive parallels. In 1936, J. Oliver Buswell and Carl McIntire had a similar complaint about WTS strict confessional stance.

“Buswell and McIntire hoped to build a fundamentalist separatist movement with a broader base than the strict Calvinism at Westminster Seminary. In the fall of 1936 they fell into intense fighting with Machen and his closest Old School confessionalist followers. These Old School Presbyterian traditionalists differed with the new-style fundamentalists on a number of the distinctives of fundamentalism. Old School Presbyterians believed in the ‘Christian liberty’ to drink alcoholic beverages and, contrary to almost all other American evangelicals, would not condemn their use. A more substantial rift was the intensification of the Westminster faculty’s opposition to dispensationalism.

These issues split the Independent Board. McIntire and his more purely fundamentalist group wrested control from Machen and his Westminster allies. In the midst of this painful internal struggle, Machen, only fifty-five, died suddenly on January 1, 1937. The more fundamentalistic group, though in control of the Independent Board, was in the minority in the new Presbyterian Church of America; so they soon split off to found the Bible Presbyterian Church. In the meantime, Allan MacRae, who had taught at Westminster since its beginning, had resigned shortly after Machen’s death and in the fall of 1937 became president of the new Faith Theological Seminary organized by the McIntire group.” (George Marsden, ‘Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism,’ Eerdmans, 1987, p. 43.)

For an informative recent analysis cf. Scott Clark’s post ‘Three Ways of Relating to American Religion.’ I have some personal perspectives on this. In addition to being a graduate of WTS, I am also an alum of the now defunct Faith Theological Seminary. Interestingly enough, Faith did require all faculty members to subscribe to the Westminster Standard (amended so as to shoe-horn in a distinctive form of premillennialism). When MacRae and McIntire had a falling out in the early 70’s, MacRae and most of the faculty left and founded what is now called Biblical Theological seminary in Hatfield, PA., which up and until MacRae’s death still required its faculty to adhere to the Westminster Standards. But it no longer does. By the way, there is a website that hosted by the alumni of BTS who are none to happy about what has happened to their seminary when a coup similar to that which occurred at Old Princeton took place stealthily at BTS.

Second, the complaint about Peter Lillback’s speaking itinerary. In addition to his work as a theologian, Lillback has written a very well received book on George Washington and has been asked to speak on the subject in all sorts of venues, including Doug Wilson’s Trinity Fest and rallies organized by the late D. James Kennedy. I personally don’t have a problem with this. It’s not as if Lillback is going over to Syria like Rick Warren and making statements on foreign policy!

Finally, among the fifty-plus people who signed on, a large number did so anonymously for fear of reprisal from the goon squads that do the bidding of the evil forces in the other departments of the seminary that have already been identified. The only thing worse than these rhabdophobic folk were the ones, like John Armstrong who have no direct connection to WTS whatsoever. Despite the claims that he has spent near fifteen years ministering at Westminster, Armstrong has never served the seminary in any official capacity – either as a adjunct or visiting professor or even guest lecturer. Yet he felt compelled to chime in and amen the concerns expressed by this website. Over the last few years, Armstrong has gone out of his way to lecture everyone about the dangers of the TR’s (the Truly Reformed, which he also calls the Angry Reformed or the Vicious Reformed). He did this with the PCA and the recent actions taken by this years GA. He disapproved and let everybody know it. He took umbrage with the action of the PCA SJC in the Steve Wilkins case. He has publicly reprimanded the Southern Baptists and individuals associated with A.C.E. It is well known that Armstrong underwent a theological paradigm shift a while back and has burned his bridges with his past associates, but feels the constant need to return and stand on the charred remains and scream at us over the chasm. Even though he likes to claim that he is a irenic peace-loving soul, he comes across as militant in his views as any old time fire-breathing fundamentalist. WTS does not need any advice from Armstrong on what direction the school determines is most faithful to that envisioned by Machen and the men who founded the seminary.

So here is my proposal to the individuals up in arms about WTS being lost to the Machen type Neanderthals in the departments of Theology, Church History and Apologetics – go over to Biblical Theological Seminary (where, interestingly enough, John Armstrong serves on the board). Chances are, you will never run into anyone on the faculty who has an agenda to enforce an ultra-strict interpretation of the Westminster Standards on the rest of the faculty. Or simply go back to Princeton.

Posted by Gary Johnson

146 Comments

The Wrong Starting Point

January 10, 2008 at 10:00 pm (Biblical Theology, Federal Vision, Theology, Uncategorized)
Tags: , , ,

Reed DePace 

I’ve spent some time contemplating a commentator’s repeated references to the historical (covenantal) vs. eschatological (decretal) perspective. I think he dwells on an essential distinction in the FV reading of what is possessed by the elect Church member (ECM) and reprobate church member (RCM). I believe this is an essential distinction because this distinction in perspectives functions as the fundamental interpretive principle the FV applies to understanding the issue of ECM vs. RCM.

It is clear from this exchange, and others, that the FV truly believes we who are opposed are not accurately hearing what the FV is saying, and that this misunderstanding flows in large part from a failure to rightly comprehend and apply these two differing perspectives. If only we would do so, we would realize that the FV is not saying anything contradictory to the reformed standards, it is merely saying more than they do.

I thought it might be helpful to express my understanding of the basic contours of this perspective distinction and how it impacts the FV’s approach to interpreting the Bible in this matter.

If I am reading this commentator rightly, I think he would say something like this, “from the eschatological perspective, I agree with the differentiation between the ECM and the RCM. Yet from the historical perspective such differentiation does not apply (at least in the same way.)” Another way the FV might say it is, “Eschatalogically (decretally) it is correct to differentiate between the ECM and the RCM. Yet historically (covenantally) you are making distinctions that cannot be demonstrated. You are insisting on reading eschatalogically things that can only be read historically.”

To be fully fair in letting the FV speak for itself, we need to note that the FV is not arguing that the historical perspective is in contradiction to the eschatological perspective, but the validity of both of them in their proper uses. Let me offer this summary of how this interpretive principle fleshes itself out in the FV:

  1. The eschatological perspective is indeed valid.
  2. Yet it is the perspective known infallibly only to the Trinity in history, and to us only in the eschaton (the end of this world and existence).
  3. The context of the Church at present is the historical perspective. We can only see the Church undifferentiatedly, ECM and RCM necessarily are seen as the same at present.
  4. Since we cannot know (infallibly) the eschatalogical perspective, the Bible is to be read from this historical perspective.
  5. This necessitates reading the references to church members and their blessings in an undifferentiated manner. E.g., both ECM and RCM experience union with Christ, justifying faith, et.al. when viewed from the historical perspective.
  6. The FV is not saying that the ECM and RCM posses the same things from the eschatalogical perspective. Rather it is to say that from the historical perspective the ECM and the RCM posses the same things. It’s a matter of two different perspectives.
  7. Since we cannot know the eschatalogical perspective, we must minister the gospel (in all its fullness) from the historical perspective. We must treat RCM and ECM in an undifferentiated manner. Both possess Christ historically. Both must be ministered to as believers truly possessing Christ and His benefits.

Hopefully it will be concluded, without need for further detail, that in essence I get what the FV is trying to say.

My problem is that the FV wrongly limits the perspective of both biblical interpretation and gospel ministry. The eschatological perspective is not some minor, inconsequential one. Rather, it is the heart beat of the NT (the NT being best understood as the definitive commentary on the meaning of the OT). Rather than there being even parity between the historical and eschatalogical perspectives in the NT, in point of fact the eschatalogical is the dominant perspective. The historical only comes into view in the role of a servant to the eschatalogical perspective.

This is not an immaterial observation. If right, it cuts to the heart of the essential FV interpretive principle, thus vitally and negatively impacting the whole FV system.

The NT does not operate in a manner like this, “now to be sure from God’s perspective there are ECM and RCM. But since you can’t infallibly see this eschatalogical perspective difference, treat all as if there were no such distinction as ECM and RCM.”

Such chapters as Matt. 13 are dominant in making this point. It is the very fact of the reality of the ECM and RCM that drives Christ’s commands in terms of ministry in the Church in this chapter laden with express distinctions between ECM and RCM. Without the eschatalogical perspective, the distinctions Christ makes devolve into at best principles that can neither be understood or applied this side of eternity. Note that Christ’s words will not lend themselves to a historical perspective – they are expressly rooted in the eschatalogical perspective and are intended to guide us in our historical setting!

Consider the example from a passage such as John 2:23-25. John begins (vs. 23) with a perspective that is clearly historical only. The “belief” of the crowd is offered for consideration in an undifferentiated manner (we could say both RCM and ECM potentially in view). Yet Jesus’ response cannot be understood as growing out of the historical perspective. Rather, his point only makes sense from the eschatalogical perspective. He makes a distinction between two kinds of belief, one possessed only by RCM and one possessed only by ECM – a decided eschatalogical perspective understanding. Here it is clear that the historical perspective is the servant of the eschatalogical perspective.

This is the heart beat of the whole NT. It is the light of the eschatalogical perspective that explains the mystery hidden in the historical perspective of the OT. The OT veiled is historical perspective dominant. The NT revealed in eschatalogical perspective dominant. Jesus speaks to his people not in the uncertain, unclear, hidden and veiled manner of the historical perspective of the old covenant. He speaks to them in the clear revelation from the eschatalogical perspective of the new covenant.

Again, this is not an insignificant criticism of the FV. Not to engage in hyperbole, but to demonstrate the significance of using the wrong interpretive presuppositions, consider that a Mormon, a Jehovah Witness, and a Roman Catholic can all (and do) affirm in sincerity, “I trust in Christ.” Yet they all mean something different about both “Christ” and “trust.” These differences flow from their differing interpretation of Scripture. As is obvious, faulty interpretive presuppositions inevitably lead to faulty understanding of the gospel, and often with eternally significant consequences.

To the degree that the FV rests on the faulty interpretive principle of giving preeminence to the historical perspective (over the eschatalogical perspective), it leads to faulty interpretations. I am not inferring anything about the degree of danger of such faulty interpretations. Don’t read between the lines and here me offering veiled accusations against the FV.

Rather I hope the points here bring home the seriousness of this issue. It should be obvious to all that we should so run so far away from faulty interpretive principles, and the faulty interpretations derived from them, as we never discover how truly dangerous they may be.

The FV is not simply saying something more than the reformed standards, and completely consistent with the Bible. It applies a faulty interpretive principle to the Bible and proposes interpretations the Bible does not support. This is dangerous.

Reed DePace

92 Comments

Good Works in Assurance and Perseverance

January 1, 2008 at 9:00 pm (2 Peter, Assurance of Salvation, Biblical Theology, Covenant, Faith, Federal Vision, Reformed, Sanctification, Theology, Westminster standards)

Posted by Bob Mattes

In comments late in this discussion, Federal Visionists are seen to confuse the doctrines of assurance and perseverance. Specifically, in discussing the doctrine of the perseverance (or preferably, preservation) of the saints, they introduced 2 Peter 1:10 as evidence that human works play a part in our preservation.

At issue is the difference between these two constructs eloquently delineated by Anne Ivy:

IOW, it’s not “those who persevere to the end will be saved”, but rather “those who are saved will persevere to the end.”

Big, big difference.

How right she is. The first phrase “those who persevere to the end will be saved” implies that we somehow contribute to our perseverance. Yet a Federal Visionist replied:

You are claiming that your calling and election are already sure, so there is a real conflict of doctrine here between you and Dort, not to mention the Lord. This is one of the things the FV is drawing your attention to – that you have to make your calling and election sure, not presume that that is the case already.

2Pet. 1:10: Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble

I assume that there’s some level of “covenantal faithfulness”, a continuing Federal Vision theme, embedded in that comment. Let’s put this verse in context. 2 Peter 2:8-11 says:

8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (ESV)

What are these verses about? Two things primarily: sanctification and assurance. Verses 8 and 9 clearly sum up the reasons for our display of the fruit of the Spirit listed in the preceding verses–that they are evidence of our sanctification. So Calvin says in his comments on verse 9:

This he also confirms by adding this reason, because such have forgotten that through the benefit of Christ they had been cleansed from sin, and yet this is the beginning of our Christianity. It then follows, that those who do not strive for a pure and holy life, do not understand even the first rudiments of faith.

But Peter takes this for granted, that they who were still rolling in the filth of the flesh had forgotten their own purgation. For the blood of Christ has not become a washing bath to us, that it may be fouled by our filth. He, therefore, calls them old sins, by which he means, that our life ought to be otherwise formed, because we have been cleansed from our sins; not that any one can be pure from every sin while he lives in this world, or that the cleansing we obtain through Christ consists of pardon only, but that we ought to differ from the unbelieving, as God has separated us for himself. Though, then, we daily sin, and God daily forgives us, and the blood of Christ cleanses us from our sins, yet sin ought not to rule in us, but the sanctification of the Spirit ought to prevail in us; for so Paul teaches us in1 Corinthians 6:11, “And such were some of you; but ye are washed,” etc. [my bold]

Thus Calvin confirms that the fruit of the Spirit are simply the evidence of our faith and ongoing sanctification in cooperation with the Spirit. It is in that light in which verse 10 appears. The Westminster Annotations comment on verse 10 says:

brethren] By regeneration and adoption, and union with Christ by faith, we are made the children of God, and brethren spiritually, Phil 4:1….Here it is used in the fourth sense for fellow Christians.

Thus the Divines and other Reformers saw 2 Peter as being written to those elected from before the foundation of the world, members of the invisible church, as Peter clearly says at the beginning of the letter:

To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

That is an important distinction to keep in mind relative for this letter as we move on to the annotators further comments on 2 Peter 1:10:

to make your calling and election sure] To get good grounds to assure you that ye were elected before the world, and are called out of the world. For it is sure enough in itself, by God’s decree and immutability, 2 Tim 2.19. Mal. 3.6. John 6.40. and 13.1. Rom. 11.29.
for if you do these things] Continuance then is well doing, is the way to get and keep assurance of salvation.
ye shall never fall] Jude verse 4. Our life is likened to a race, 1 Cor.9.24. we must take heed lest we fall, and come short of the prize set before us. The children of God may fall into some sins by weakness; but never so as to lose the goal. verse 11. [my bold]

Clearly the Reformers saw these verses as models both for sanctification and assurance. None of the Federal Vision’s “morbid introspection” is necessary for assurance. Also embedded in the annotators last sentence is the glorious truth that assurance unto perseverance is solely by the grace of God. Our good works performed in cooperation with the Holy Spirit are evidence, not the cause, of our assurance of election and unto perseverance.

Driving yet another nail into the Federal Vision coffin, Calvin says about verse 10:

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence. He draws this conclusion, that it is one proof that we have been really elected, and not in vain called by the Lord, if a good conscience and integrity of life correspond with our profession of faith. And he infers, that there ought to be more labor and diligence, because he had said before, that faith ought not to be barren.

Some copies have, “by good works;” but these words make no change in the sense, for they are to be understood though not expressed.

He mentions calling first, though the last in order. The reason is, because election is of greater weight or importance; and it is a right arrangement of a sentence to subjoin what preponderates. The meaning then is, labor that you may have it really proved that you have not been called nor elected in vain. At the same time he speaks here of calling as the effect and evidence of election. If any one prefers to regard the two words as meaning the same thing, I do not object; for the Scripture sometimes merges the difference which exists between two terms. I have, however, stated what seems to me more probable. [my bold]

And what about Federal Vision’s “covenantal faithfulness”?

Now a question arises, Whether the stability of our calling and election depends on good works, for if it be so, it follows that it depends on us. But the whole Scripture teaches us, first, that God’s election is founded on his eternal purpose; and secondly, that calling begins and is completed through his gratuitous goodness. The Sophists, in order to transfer what is peculiar to God’s grace to ourselves, usually pervert this evidence. But their evasions may be easily refuted. For if any one thinks that calling is rendered sure by men, there is nothing absurd in that; we may however, go still farther, that every one confirms his calling by leading a holy and pious life. But it is very foolish to infer from this what the Sophists contend for; for this is a proof not taken from the cause, but on the contrary from the sign or the effect. Moreover, this does not prevent election from being gratuitous, nor does it shew that it is in our own hand or power to confirm election. For the matter stands thus, — God effectually calls whom he has preordained to life in his secret counsel before the foundation of the world; and he also carries on the perpetual course of calling through grace alone. But as he has chosen us, and calls us for this end, that we may be pure and spotless in his presence; purity of life is not improperly called the evidence and proof of election, by which the faithful may not only testify to others that they are the children of God, but also confirm themselves in this confidence, in such a manner, however, that they fix their solid foundation on something else.

Calvin could hardly be clearer that the perseverance of the saints relies on God’s grace alone. Again, our good works merely serve as evidence of our lively faith and hence provide us with confidence in and assurance of our election unto eternal life.

What about 2 Peter 1:11? According to the Westminster Annotations:

an entrance] A large passage into the Kingdom of glory in the life to come.
abundantly] John 10.10. If ye be full of good works, ye shall have abundant reward, 1 Cor. 9.9. and 15.58. 2 John verse 8.

Consistent with the rest of Scripture, we see here that our good works decide our reward, not our “final justification”, the latter being another Federal Vision theme.

Note, also, that the reprobate in the visible church are no where in view in this passage. The reprobate in the visible church have no assurance of salvation whatsoever, at any time or in any way. We’ve argued elsewhere on this site that baptism can only contribute to the assurance for the elect, the reprobate have no assurance from their baptism. Quite the contrary, it will be an instrument in their condemnation for trampling on the blood of Christ (Hebrews 6:4; 10:29).

I think that to offer the reprobate pew sitters any assurance, as Federal Visionists do with their mythical “objective covenant”, represents a massive pastoral failure on their part. As Scripture and the Westminster Standards clearly state, assurance of election can only ever belong to those elected to eternal life from before the foundation of the world. All others should be on their knees trembling, not feeling comfortable in pews and at pot lucks.

So, 2 Peter 1:10 clearly supports the orthodox Reformed statement that “those who are saved will persevere to the end” and not the other way around; not “in some sense” but absolutely. Our good works provide us with assurance of our election, but are excluded as a player in either our justification on the one end or our perseverance on the other. And that because our perseverance depends solely on God’s infinite grace and faithfulness, not by our “covenantal faithfulness” or anything else that we do or do not do. Anything else is not Good News.

Posted by Bob Mattes

55 Comments

Orthodox Reformed View of Covenants

December 19, 2007 at 7:48 pm (Biblical Theology, Christology, Church, Covenant, Federal Vision, Reformed, Theology)

Posted by Bob Mattes

Pastor Wes White has published an excellent essay in Merit & The Covenant of Works. Please don’t read another word here until you’ve read his short essay. Go ahead.

Done reading? Good. Wes does an excellent job of laying out the orthodox Reformed view on the covenants clearly and concisely. In doing so, Wes points out the errors that Federal Visioners make in their rejection of merit, the Covenant of Works, and how the Covenant of Grace fundamentally differs from the Covenant of Works. There’s no slight of hand used, just consistent exegesis of key Scripture sections.

As Wes eloquently shows, there is no need to create a mythical “objective covenant”, grant temporary saving benefits to the reprobate, or erroneously reject the imputation of Christ’s active obedience to explain or “fix” anything. Reformed theology as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards had the appropriate Scriptural answers long before Shepherd, Wright, and the Federal Vision folks came on the scene, and will continue contain the system of doctrine taught in holy Scripture long after the fad theologies of these latecomers are forgotten.

Thanks, Wes, for taking the time to bring clarity to the discussion.

Posted by Bob Mattes

187 Comments

« Older entries