Green Baggins

I do not necessarily speak for the other Christ the Center folks in responding the way I do to Scott Clark’s blog post about our FV discussion. This should be very clearly in mind. If the others decide they agree, fair enough, they can comment on my blog or elsewhere.

The issue with Dr. Gaffin is certainly a WTS versus WSC issue, not just an issue regarding the Federal Vision, or even regarding Norman Shepherd. In my opinion, Dr. Gaffin has sufficiently distanced himself from those problematic formulations in his recent book, in the article in the WTS book on justification, and in his article in the newest Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes. This may be a matter of a difference of opinion. However, in talking at length with Dr. Gaffin about these matters, it seems quite clear to me that Dr. Gaffin does in fact uphold the Westminster Standards on these issues. And I am not merely defending my professor on this issue. I think it is true.

The second issue is a point well taken. I think we were more concerned with describing what the Federal Vision is, rather than describing its reception per se in the NAPARC denominations. It certainly cannot be heard too many times that it has been rejected by so many denominations in the NAPARC organization.  

Last time I went through the FV Joint Statement, I dealt with paragraphs 5-6 together. A word on the rhetoric of that post: what I mean when I say “in other words” is that this is the consequence of what is being said. I still do think these two paragraphs are the weakest section in the whole document. I really want to ask several questions, however.

Could Doug please explain what “hyper-specialized terminology in the regular teaching and preaching of the Church has the unfortunate effect of confusing the saints?” Especially since it appears he is talking about hyper-specialized terms that have broader biblical usage (”biblical use of the same language”). What is his target here? The terms justification, sanctification, propitiation, expiation? Oh wait, those are biblical terms. Election, predestination, fore-ordination? Oh wait, those are biblical terms, also. Maybe he is talking about the terms that the church has been forced to use because of heresies (such as the Arian heresy). Words like “homoousias,” which can be translated as “of the same essence.” I’m not sure how that term could be confusing, though.

Second question: is such language (let’s talk about the Dordtian use of the term “election,” which might very well be what Doug is talking about) not biblical? Is “good and necessary consequence” a legitimate way of using terms as summaries of biblical teaching? Oftentimes, I think the question comes down to exegesis of such passages as Ephesians 1: is Paul using the term “election” there in what could be described somewhat anachronistically as the Dordtian way, or is it the FV “covenantal election?” Here it is clear that I believe that the FV has not proven their case exegetically AT ALL. I have yet to see a detailed exegetical discussion of why they interpret Ephesians 1 of covenantal election rather than decretal election. Look at the benefits that come from election in Ephesians 1: adoption (vs 5), redemption through Christ’s blood (vs 7), forgiveness of sins (vs 7), obtaining the inheritance (vs 11), the hope in Christ (vs 12), belief in Him (vs 13), and the seal of the Holy Spirit (vv 13-14). These people are true believers, not just covenant members according to the FV definition of covenant. Unless the FV is willing to say that all these benefits are losable, then it seems rather clear that Ephesians 1 is talking about election in the decretal way, not a supposed covenantal way.

Some of you might possibly be interested in an interview on the Federal Vision I recently did with Christ the Center group. I think we did get at a basic primer on the Federal Vision, what it is, and what are its dangers.

I always enjoy reading Doug’s rhetoric. It is always creative and colorful. One criticism that could never be levelled against Doug’s writing is “boring.” In this instance, it is the language used to describe his astonishment that I have apparently given Lusk a free and clean bill of health (perhaps unknowingly). Let me set the record straight on this issue. I have never criticized Lusk for saying that union with Christ is the central soteric benefit. I agree with him (and have always agreed with him) on that issue. I do not think that this is the heart of the disagreement between Lusk and myself, or between Lusk and his critics. The problems come in when discussing the relationship of justification to union with Christ, the place of baptism in relation to union with Christ, the relationship of perseverance to union with Christ, etc. I find it somewhat ironic. There are critics of the Federal Vision, of course, who may indeed criticize Lusk on this point, and may even lay the Federal Vision at Gaffin’s feet. I am not one of them (fairly obviously, I think). Could it be that Wilson is lumping all the critics of the Federal Vision together, when, in fact, they do not all come from the same viewpoint? Is assuming a monolithic critical stance happening for people who hate charges of monolithicity? Isn’t this ironic? Can I end another sentence with a question mark? Okay, I’m done being silly now (and please take this in a light-hearted manner. One of the things I have noticed is that the atmosphere being charged the way it is, humor is thought to be serious, especially my humor. A great pity.).

I really challenge the assertion that repentance and faith are only indirectly from God. What else does the Holy Spirit accomplish in us but repentance and faith? Just because we are the ones who exercise faith does not mean that faith is indirectly from God. Ephesians 2 says that our faith is a gift from God. That sounds a bit direct to me, but maybe I’m off. Maybe there is a middle-man in the direction of faith from God to us. I don’t know yet who or what that would be. Maybe Doug can enlighten us on how faith is only indirectly from God and not directly from God. The troubles I seem to be having saying that faith is obedience are mirrored by Doug’s trouble in saying that faith is a direct gift from God. If faith is a direct gift from God, then that challenges his assertions that faith is obedience, and yet Scripture plainly indicates that faith is such a direct gift from God. I am not asserting, however, that God exercises faith for us. I am saying what Scott Clark said: the categories of law and gospel help us out here, as does the gift-character of faith. Obedience is a law term, whereas faith is a gospel term. And since all sorts of confusion arise when law and gospel are confused, I will stick with the Reformed tradition on this one. I really think the bottom line on this one is that Doug does not accept the hermeneutical law-gospel distinction (against the whole Reformed tradition), and I do. My syllogism to answer Doug’s looks, therefore, like this: 1. faith is a gift of God; 2. obedience is not gift; 3. therefore faith is not of the category of obedience, but rather of gift. QED Of course, Doug would contest premise 2, and not premise 1 (although see the question of directness above). He would probably say that obedience can be gift. But obedience as I am using the term means obedience to the law. From whence does the impetus come for us to have faith? It cannot come from us (as the law would command). It can only come from God.    

if Scott saw that I needed a bit of help on the question of faith and obedience in relation to Doug, and decided to post this. At any rate, he expresses magnificently better than I could what I have been trying to say to Doug. I really cannot do better.   

Some really great arguments as to why the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith were right in saying that the entirety of the moral law was given to Adam before the fall.

Doug has answered my post here. I am not going to answer every point. If he wants to think that he has checkmated me on certain issues, he can think that way. He has never answered my exegesis, nor has he shown how my alternatives to obedience/disobedience description of faith are not to the point. He has claimed that they are not to the point, but that is not the same as proving it. Quite simply put, our response to God’s command to come to faith is God’s doing, and therefore of grace, and therefore cannot be put in the same category as obedience. Obedience and grace are antithetical when it comes to justification, because of the law/gospel hermeneutic (which of course, Doug and I disagree on). I think that Doug would agree with parts of that formulation, at least, and I am content to leave it there. If Doug wants to reply further on this issue, he can have the last word. I have played chess since I was 4 years old, and have some talents in it. At any rate, I can recognize checkmate when I see it, and this isn’t it.   

One more comment on the aliveness of faith in justification. No Reformed author of which I am aware advocates justification by a dead faith. Of course faith must be alive in order to be instrumental in justification. But that is not the point I am raising. The point I am raising is that the aliveness of faith is not part of the justification mechanism itself. It is a sine qua non, but not a part of the cause. David McCrory stated it well, I though in the first comment under Doug’s post, although I still would not use the term obedience in reference to justification.  

Regeneration happens simultaneously with justification, not before it. I have excellent antecedents in the Reformed faith for thinking so: John Calvin, Richard Gaffin, Sinclair Ferguson, and the entire WTS faculty. Calvin believes that union with Christ is the basic soteric category in which all other things are comprehended. Within that broad category, there are justification type benefits and sanctification type benefits that occur simultaneously with God’s gift of faith to the believer. On this basis, I reject utterly the view that justification depends on a prior infusion of grace in regeneration. The infusion and the imputation occur simultaneously, neither one dependent on the other, neither one separated from the other in any way, including time. The mechanism of justification differs radically from the mechanism of sanctification. This simultaneity is at the very least hinted at in WLC 77. I realize that some Reformed authors place regeneration before faith in time. I do not see any biblical passages that teach this. On the contrary, when regeneration happens, faith is present. Similarly, when faith is present, justification has also happened. Hence, faith lays hold passively (because the righteousness is extra nos, although ours by right of union) of Christ’s righteousness in justification, and actively (because it includes a real, actual righteousness in the believer) lays hold of Christ in sanctification by the power of the Spirit.  

On Romans 6, is Doug seriously suggesting that “dikaisunen” means “justification?” He needs to look up the word in BDAG. When he does, he will find out that the vast majority of the uses of the term simply mean “righteousness.” It is by extension that the term means righteousness judicially by divine declaration. The word by no means automatically implies justification. Justification is the meaning of the word when the context demands it. Since Romans 6 is clearly talking about sanctification, not justification, then the meaning of righteousness is determined accordingly. Hence the obedience of faith also has to do with sanctification in that passage, not with justification. I noticed that Doug only engaged about 1/5 of my arguments on the passage. Furthermore, just because one word has an interesting semantic range has nothing to do with whether another word has an interesting semantic range. Just because dessert has a wide semantic range does not mean that cookie also has a wide semantic range. There are limits to the analogy, including the fact that righteousness and obedience both have narrower semantic ranges than “dessert” has. The point is simply that the semantic range of one word does not determine the semantic range of another word.

Finally moving on to the next section of the Joint Statement. My previous response is here. I invite Doug primarily to respond to that. What does constitute a hermeneutical grid not derived from the Scriptures themselves? More importantly, who or what gets to determine what would fall into such a category? How does the analogy of faith enter into this discussion? This statement is so vague that anyone can interpret the phrase “non-Scriptural hermeneutical grid” to exclude just about anything they want to exclude. Is the Trinity a non-Scriptural hermeneutical grid? How about the Westminster Confession? This statement masks disagreement among the FV’ers on this very point: Wilson wants to uphold the Confessions, verbally at least. Jeff Meyers thinks that the standards are not sufficient for the 21st century. Norman Shepherd thinks that the PCA should just chuck the Westminster Standards entirely (as if the 3FU are any more conducive to his views than the WS are!). This is a fairly broad range of opinion on the churchly standards. In my opinion, such a statement allows any FV’er to say anything they want about the confessional standards of the church. Let me repeat myself from my earlier post on this subject: good and necessary consequence has the same authority as Scripture itself, according to WCF 1.6. Speaking in the abstract, then, whatever in the Westminster Standards is, in fact, good and necessary consequence does have the authority of Scripture itself. Whatever is not of good and necessary consequence does not. In the latter statement lies the qualification that one does not make in regard to Scripture itself. It is possible that the standards are wrong. But whatever is correct in the Standards by good and necessary consequence has the authority of Scripture, since it is simply a summary of Scripture. Many people are uncomfortable with saying this. They rightly point out that the words of men do not have the same authority as the Word of God. But that is not what we are saying here. What we are saying is that, to the extent that the Westminster Standards accurately summarize Scripture, it has the authority of Scripture, since it is good and necessary consequence to the extent that it is accurate. Such summaries can be amended to be even more accurate. And there might be errors in the WCF. It is fallible in the sense that it can err. But that is not the same as saying that it is in error. I believe it to be an accurate summary of Scripture. As we will see, the joint FV statement does not hold the WS in the same regard as this paragraph does.     

Doug has responded here. I want to remind us of what the main issue that started this long series of back and forth (surely the longest in our blog debate). The issue is this: is there a distinction to be made between works of the law, on the one hand, and obedience on the other in justification? I see that as the context for the whole debate. Everything in this part of the debate should be read in light of that question. I have been seeking to show all along that with regard to justification, there is no distinction between evangelical obedience and the works of the law: all of it is excluded from justification, except, of course, what Christ has done. I can easily grant that saving faith is an evangelical obedience (as WCF 11.1 says), if I can qualify that by saying that its quality as an evangelical obedience has no relevance to justification itself, other than as an always accompanying aspect (like faith’s aliveness). Indeed, in WCF 11.1, the whole point of mentioning faith as an evangelical obedience is to deny its place in justification as any kind of ground for justification. Furthermore, faith is not imputed as the righteousness that we have before God. It is not as if faith itself is the substitute for all the obedience to the law that we owe. This is the heart of what I have been trying to say.

In my opinion, this whole issue is very parallel to the debate about faith’s aliveness. It is not the aliveness of faith that makes faith the instrument of justification. Rather, it is the fact that faith lays hold of faith’s object (Christ in all His righteousness) that makes faith justifying. Justifying faith is always alive. We are not justified by a dead faith. But neither is faith’s aliveness that aspect of faith that is instrumental. I believe that the debate about faith’s aliveness and the debate about faith as evangelical obedience are very similar in structure.

I still think that there are far better terms to describe faith than obedience, precisely because so many qualifications have to be laid on top of it that it becomes practically useless. And, the possibilities for misunderstanding all this in a deadly way abound. It is far better to harp on the gracious character of God’s faith-gift to us. 

The upshot of all this is that our obedience of all stripes plays no part in justification. Not ”rebellious obedience,” which is a contradiction in terms, not evangelical, Spirit-filled works of righteousness, nothing. 

All this reminds me of my challenge, which I do not believe Doug has met: find one single passage where evangelical obedience and so-called rebellious works are contrasted with regard to justification. By what exegetical method does Doug exclude Spirit-filled works from the phrase “works of the law” in Romans 3:21-31, say?   

Doug has responded here to my post, and I think we are getting at some extremely important issues here. The question is this: can justifying faith be described in any way as obedience to God’s command? The reason I believe that Doug has not engaged my exegesis is that he does not yet realize that I have actually addressed this question. What my exegesis is intended to show is that the obedience of faith is not in reference to justification, but in reference to sanctification in the passages indicated. This allows faith to have its full force as obedience in those passages, and yet preserves the complete absence of obedience as a category to describe justifying faith. Doug would like to describe this as simply a way for me to preserve my theological categories. But I believe that there is an exegetical reason for the distinction of categories here, and that is why I engaged in exegesis to prove it. Of course, Doug can seek to prove that my exegesis is wrong, which would require the handling of the Greek (I really would like to see some FV’ers actually engage the Greek New Testament). As of now, however, he has not tried to do that. Instead, he has claimed that I have not addressed the problem.

The problem with the semantic range of obedience is one that has been noted on the comments on Doug’s post, and is a crucial problem. I suspect that Doug and I will simply not agree on this issue, because my position is based on the law/gospel distinction, which I see as being present in the text, and which Doug sees not as part of the text, but as part of the application of the text. Here is what I mean: justifying faith has no relation to law, but to Gospel (this is referring to what happens in us: obviously, with reference to what Christ has done, it has a great deal to do with law). Therefore I can draw a distinction between the aspect of faith that justifies (and is part of Gospel, not of law) and the aspect of faith that sanctifies (which has relation to the third use of the law in particular, without leaving behind the first use). We are not talking about two faiths, but rather of one faith that has distinct but inseparable aspects related to different benefits that God graciously gives to us. The use of the term “obedience” with regard to justifying faith has to be qualified so carefully that it is practically qualified out of existence. I do believe that the passive aspects of faith (such as receiving and resting) are much more conducive to a proper understanding of the difference between justification and sanctification.  

I don’t recognize myself very much in this post. Something got garbled. It could have been me, or it could have been on Doug’s side. I make no immediate judgment. But at the moment, there is a clear mud of communication. At any rate, the arguments I was putting forward (or thought I was putting forward) bear very little resemblance to the arguments that Doug was cheerfully demolishing. I am very careful of making this claim, because I do not wish to sound like FV’ers in this regard. Furthermore, I cheerfully acknowledge the possibility (nay, even probability) that I am not always communicating clearly.

Lane took me as objecting to grammatical and dogmatic parsing generally, when I was only objecting to it as a means of solving non-existent problems.

This is not what I was doing. This sentence (”These texts cannot be properly understood with that sort of analysis”) qualifies this sentence: “What is puzzling about it is that grammatical and dogmatic parsing, as Doug puts it, is not allowed, in Doug’s thinking.” Emphasis added. So, I was not accusing Doug of rejecting exegesis altogether (which would be a rather stupid accusation). What I was saying was that Doug seemed to be objecting to my using exegesis as a way of solving this particular problem with these particular verses. the point is that if the verses do not mention or talk about justification, then what right have we to use such passages to speak about the inception of faith, when it much more likely refers to the process of the Christian life? Unless Doug wants to say that justification and sanctification are not actually distinct, which is surely something he does not want to do. That is, if he still wants his king left on the board. How else are we supposed to solve what looks like a problem with our theology, if not with exegesis and detailed parsing? If the exegesis leaves no choice but to change our theology, that’s fine. But we all have presuppositions, and we all have doctrinal undergirdings of our exegesis.

Second misunderstanding: Doug seems to think that my position entails a temporary distinction in time between justification and sanctification. At least, that is what the analogy of the bride and groom’s love starting only ten days after the wedding. I believe that justification and sanctification are simultaneously given in union with Christ. Therefore, they are inseperable, yet distinct. Josh Walker (Johnny_Redeemed on Doug’s website) made the all-important point that faith is not related to the category of obedience when it comes to justification. Doug objects that the Bible commands people to have faith. But this is the whole point under dispute. Doug simply states his conclusion as a way to answer the argument. If he wants actually to engage my exegesis, then we will get somewhere, I am confident.

Now, the passage from Mark 1:15 is to the point. What I believe we should avoid most assiduously is saying that obedience (even such a straight-jacketed obedience as Doug describes) has instrumentality in justification. In Mark 1:15, the point is that it is a turning from sin. This belongs to santification (which occurs, remember, at the same time as justification, at least, in its inception). So, the call to the obedience of faith has reference to sanctification, which is properly the realm of repentance and turning, since justification is completely passive.

Third miscommunication:

“No implication, therefore, is made of whether coming to faith itself is an act of obedience.” That means that believing in Jesus must be disobedient. And all God’s people said, “Jeepers.”

There is no indication here that Doug understands that I was talking about a specific passage here (2 Thessalonians 1). This is indicated by the “therefore” which concludes the exegesis of the whole paragraph. Furthermore, Josh’s comments are applicable. Because I do not say that faith is an act of obedience does not in the least imply that I am advocated that faith is an act of disobedience. So, as I said, there is miscommunication somewhere. At the moment, it feels more like the miscommunication is on Doug’s end. But I am open to persuasion on this point.