Green Baggins

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Bob Mattes

I believe it worthwhile pointing out how Federal Visionists dance around exact definitions and rely on unstated assumptions to try to sound orthodox or hijack the orthodox Reformed view. There’s an interesting Federal Vision assertion here:

It wasn’t too long ago that we were assured in the name of protecting the Gospel and the Reformed Faith that God was “in no way” the savior of any except those predestined to everlasting life.

For clarity, 1 Tim 4:10 is the verse in question and it says:

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. (ESV)

This first assertion about “the Savior of all people” was clearly answered in this post, including direct quotes from James Jordan giving the Federal Vision view and Calvin (and his translator) providing the orthodox Reformed view. Pretty straight-forward, so this first assertion has no basis.

The second Federal Vision assertion is:

Now we are hearing similar absolute negatives about being united to Christ. None of this is either Biblical or “Reformed.”

He attempts to use WLC Q.63 to assert that the unregenerate in the visible church are united to Christ.

Q. 63. What are the special privileges of the visible church?
A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.

He then concludes his argument with:

The proof associated with “being uder [sic] God’s special care and government,” is First Timothy 4.10, which I quote above.

But notice that neither the WLC or 1 Tim 4:10 say that the unregenerate in the visible church are united to Christ! To read that in the catechism would require equating “being under God’s special care and government” with being “united in Christ”, something the catechism excludes, especially when reading the two later catechism questions:

Q. 65. What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
A. The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.

Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.

Also see WSC Q.30:

Q. 30. How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.

See that the catechisms specifically call out union with Christ as a benefit for the elect based on effectual calling, but specifically exclude it from the general visible church which is NOT effectually called. So it is only the Federal Visions unstated assumption that “being under God’s special care and government” means “united in Christ”, something contrary to both the Standards and Scripture. Hence, Andy Webb’s post United to Christ But Not Going to Heaven is right on target in its use of absolutes. So is my earlier extensive post on Union with Christ, which also covers the orthodox Reformed view and includes an excerpt from the PCA’s study report that starts out with:

The Westminster Standards only speak of a “union with Christ” as that which is effectual; or to say it another way, as that which is saving and belongs to the elect (LC 65, 66). This is the “work of God’s grace” whereby the “Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling” (LC 66; SC 30). This “thereby” of the catechism’s statement is important: it conveys that the Spirit uses faith to unite believers to Christ (cf. WCF 26:1).

The Federal Vision post ends with the usual intemperate language which I will not repeat here. Must be a manifestation of serrated edge theology.

Just thought that you’d like to know…the rest of the story.

Posted by Bob Mattes

Now for it. Here is my review of Gary Johnson’s article.

Gary Johnson starts off his article with a discussion of the purpose of polemics, using the Wesley/Toplady debates, as well as the example of John Calvin, as a starting point. His conclusion about this issue is that “the purpose of polemics is not argument for argument’s sake, but the critical evaluation of truth claims” (pg. 197). A second, vitally important concern is brought out shortly thereafter: “Polemical theology serves a noble and important role only when doctrine is highly valued” (ibid.). The reason this is important is that oftentimes in our current theological climate, the heat of polemics tends to be downplayed in its importance by the cold-blooded theological majority. All this is to set up a defense of Warfield’s polemics against Briggs, which Johnson views as necessary to the defense of the truth at that time. As Warfield points out (quoted by Johnson), “There are, regrettably, those in our midst who fear controversy more than error” (pg. 198, quoted from Warfield’s Shorter Writings, 2:216).

The next section of the article deals with Warfield’s polemics against C.A. Briggs. Briggs held to a “limited inerrancy” view, which refused biblical inerrancy to fields such as history, geography, and other subjects (!), but maintained that the Bible was authoritative for faith and practice (pg. 199, quoting James T. Dennison, Jr., The Letters of Geerhardus Vos, pp. 33-34). I am not going to relate all the details of the Briggs trial that Johnson so carefully documents. However, I will quote rather extensively from the Briggs quotation on pg. 205, which I deem of crucial importance today:

No one who has studied through the literature of Christology can do other than say that the researches of recent scholars have put the whole subject in such new lights that the writings of the older scholars have become for the most part antiquated. There are doubtless many still living who are unwilling to accept any theological opinions which have not been stamped with the approval of the antiquarians. For such the author does not write. The readers he desires are the open-minded and truth-loving, who would see the Christ as the apostles saw him, and who will not be restrained from the heavenly vision by the pretended perils of the Higher Criticism and of Biblical Theology, or by the supposed safer paths of traditional and ecclesiastical theology…The author has done his best to turn away from the Christ of the theologians and of the creeds and of the church, and to see the Messiah as he is set forth in the writings of the apostles. (from The Messiah of the Apostles, pg. ii).

As Johnson notes (ibid.), Briggs here completely rejects systematic theology in favor of biblical theology. I wonder how many of Briggs’s disciples today would react to this quotation from the great Geerhardus Vos:

The fact is that Biblical Theology just as much as Systematic Theology makes the material undergo a transformation. The sole difference is in the principle on which the transformation is conducted. In the case of Biblical Theology this is historical, in the case of Systematic Theology it is of a logical nature. Each of these two in necessary, and there is no occasion for a sense of superiority in either. (Biblical Theology, pg. 14, emphasis mine).

A close look at Vos’s incredibly helpful article on the covenant in Reformed theology (see Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, pp. 234-267) will reveal that Vos was quite conversant in all of the scholastic Reformed theologians, and indeed viewed them as bread and butter for theological reflection. More importantly, he viewed their contribution to systematic theology as exercising an incredibly important impact on his conduction of biblical theology. This attitude towards systematic theology is almost completely lacking in most biblical theology done today. Instead, we see a complete bifurcation between the wrongly so-called “scholastic rationalization” of the 17^th century Reformed authors (in particular) and a more “biblical” theology that is exegetical. Briggs would certainly have approved of this development in “Reformed” theology.

After briefly noting Warfield’s contempt for dispensationalism and the wild-eyed, but hermeneutically naïve systematics of various authors from that tradition, Johnson proceeds to draw some relevant applications of Warfield’s polemic for various contemporary issues. He takes aim at Sandlin, Franke, and Armstrong. However, I want to focus the rest of this review on Johnson’s critique of Peter Enns, a professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, who has written a book entitled Inspiration and Incarnation. This is an extremely difficult thing for me to write about, since I had Enns as a professor, learned a lot from him, and consider him a friend. Nevertheless, the concerns which Johnson has of the book are concerns that entered my mind as I was reading Enns’ book. Especially important are the qualifications that Warfield puts on the incarnational analogy itself (see pp. 229-230), the problems inherent in making the dependability of the Bible dependent on other ancient sources outside the Bible (which is not something Van Til would have approved of: see pg. 226), and the problem of using the term “myth” to describe the Bible. On the latter point, it might have been nice to see a more explicit address of the question of historicity, especially given Enns’ definition of myth as “an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?” (pg. 40 of Inspiration and Incarnation). In the context of this definition, Enns rejects the idea that myth, if it is to be used at all in the description of Genesis, is to be equated with “’untrue,’ ‘made-up,’ ’storybook’” (ibid). However, Enns did not help himself by including the word “simply” in the sentence mentioned, as it would seem to imply that it is possible legitimately to include those three pejorative words, and yet still get at something deeper. Enns also shot himself in the foot on the next page, where he has this off-hand comment that would seem to contradict his earlier statement: “So, stories were made up that aimed at answering questions of ultimate meaning” (pg. 41). He rejected “made-up,” apparently, on pg. 40, and yet embraces the word on page 41. Then, in the next paragraph, he shifts back to the definition of myth as a prescientific story (definition of story would be nice here!) of origin. This is not pure nit-picking here. The question is this: are there errors or not in the Bible? Is Genesis, for instance, a made-up story of origin, or did it actually happen? This question is not assuming a modern scientific mindset in and of itself, since ancient people did in fact concern themselves with what actually happened. The continual recitation of the Exodus events ought to be proof enough of this. I am not asking the question of whether Genesis tells a scientific story, but whether Genesis tells a factual story.

Another important question is this: is Enns’ idea of “limitation” equivalent to Briggs’ idea that the Bible is fallible? What does Enns mean by “limitation?” He seems to advocate that the Bible readers were culturally limited in the sense that God made sure that His words spoke to the culture of that time. Is this equivalent to saying that the Bible is wrong in places? Since this would be a good discussion point, I will not answer the question.

Posted by Lane Keister

This is why the Federal Vision authors cannot stand Vos:

Even today the call of the law sounds in our ears: such a life I would give you, if only you could fulfil me! God could have wholly eradicated that relation and have taken away the last traces of it from our minds, after the covenant of works was broken. However, He kept its memory alive in us. He has repeated that promise hypothetically and consequently has held up before us constantly the ideal of eternal life to be obtained by keeping the law, a lost ideal though it be…At Sinai it was not the “bare” law that was given, but a reflection of the covenant of works revived, as it were, in the interests of the covenant of grace continued at Sinai…The covenant is neither a hypothetical relationship, nor a conditional position; rather it is the fresh, living fellowship in which the power of grace is operative. Only by the exercise of faith does it become a reality. It is always believers who act as true covenant partners with God. They who are partners also have the promises in their entirety sealed to them as believers. The covenant is a totality from which no benefit can be excluded. (Redemptive History and Biblical Interpetation, pp. 254-256).

I am re-reading Vos’s Biblical Theology right now. I came across this great quotation, which ought to give certain modern-day theologians great pause:

The fact is that Biblical Theology just as much as as Systematic Theology makes the material undergo a transformation. The sole difference is in the principle on which the transformation is conducted. In the case of Biblical Theoloy this is historical, in the case of Systematic Theology it is of a logical nature. Each of these two is necessary, and there is no occasion for a sense of superiority in either (p. 14).

I was quite struck by the difference in attitude to ST shown by Vos as compared with many practitioners of BT today. I am quite certain that the change has to do with logic itself. That is, that logic is no longer seen as necessary for the proper understanding of theology. Contrary to the claims of some, the Enlightenment is not responsible for the logic of post-Reformation systematics. Rather, the Enlightenment is responsible for the repudiation of such systematic treatment. As soon as reason is ultimate, it quickly loses its ability to synthesize God’s truth, since it is not a sanctified reason. Therefore, Vos would be thrown out by the majority of BT practitioners today.