Green Baggins

Please be patient. Today is my day off, so I only come to the office to keep from being bulldozed by stuff on Wednesday. But I will try to get to stuff tomorrow.

All my nieces and nephews are wonderful to me (including those on my wife’s side). All together, I have 46 nephews and nieces. Here is the latest one, the first-born of my twin-brother and his wife. It looks like they are going to go with Germanic names. Hans Friedrich is definitely Germanic! Interestingly, it is also the first and middle names of a German commentator, whose commentary on Hebrews I own. Well, okay, that is probably only interesting to me! ;-)  

Doug has continued the conversation. And I think we’re making some progress. We’re getting closer on the issue of the place of obedience in relation to justification. We agree that the ground of our justification is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Doug seems to be saying that it is the sole ground of our justification. I would agree with that, although I am not sure that Doug is entirely consistent on this point. I see four issues that need addressing.

First up is faith’s aliveness again. I am willing to say that faith must be alive to justify. We are not justified by a dead faith. The aliveness of faith is hence a state of faith that is always present in a justifying faith. To take up Doug’s analogy, a dead eye cannot see (although the analogy breaks down, because an eye really cannot be said to have life in itself, whereas a God-given faith most definitely does have life in itself). But in what does faith’s aliveness consist? Does it not consist in sanctification? Does it not consist in good works? Faith’s aliveness means that faith does something. This is why faith’s aliveness is not directly relevant to justification, because in justification, faith is receptive and therefore passive. Faith’s aliveness, always accompanying justification, consists in sanctification.

Second topic: words that would describe faith’s response in justification better than obedience. Ephesians 2 describes faith’s response as the gift of God. Doug will no doubt respond that it is not an either/or here, and that faith can be a gift and yet obedient. In one sense (that of sanctification) this is true. However, the problem here is that our obedience is not part of justification. Period. If we are talking about the whole of salvation, including everything from justification to sanctification to glorification, then obedience can be used, as long as it is understood that it does not apply to justification. Another example of a better way to describe faith’s response: the righteousness of God (Romans 1:17). The righteousness of God is revealed in our faith. In an apophatic way, faith can be described as “not works of the law” (as is plain in Rom. 3:21-22). Oftentimes, an apophatic way of describing something is quite helpful. Romans 4:5 is parallel in saying that faith does not work but trusts in justification. So, there are three examples of better language.

Third topic: I am very grateful that Doug stated this with regard to Romans 3: “So I exclude Spirit-filled ‘works’ from justification because the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith, and not by works of the law.” This seems to be saying that ALL our works are excluded from justification, and not merely some (such as boundary markers), or merely “rebellious” works. However, questions still remain. The way he put his puzzlement does not adequately describe my position. What does “Spirit-filled faith” mean? Do we have to be sanctified in order to be justified? What I am trying to get at here is that the eye, while having to be part of the body in order to see, does not see because it is part of the body (which is rather an always accompanying necessity, and a sine qua non), but because neural signals are sent from the eye to the brain. The mechanism of seeing is not “belonging to the body,” or else hands could see. The mechanism of seeing is what is parallel to justification in the analogy. To Tim Prussic, I would add that this very well might be the exact same thing that Wilson is trying to say. But clarity and avoidance of over-generalized terms is quite vital to a discussion on justification.

Fourth topic: Romans 6 is not talking about justification in any way, shape, or form. “Righteousness” is the word in verse 17, not justification. There is more than one kind of righteousness. There is imputed righteousness and there is infused righteousness. Romans 6:16 is most definitely talking about the latter, and not the former. There are many, many exegetical reasons for this. Firstly, the whole context is about how we live (verse 1). The emphasis in on continuance. That right there takes us out of the realm of justification and into the realm of sanctification. Secondly, the contrast between εἰς θάνατον and εἰς δικαιοσύνην indicates the continual purpose and goal of living in such a way. It is a telic use of εἰς. Such a use would be foreign to Paul’s treatment of justification, but finds an easy home in Paul’s treatment of sanctification. The tenses of the verbs also support this understanding of Romans 6. They are not aorist, but either future or present, indicating a continual process (not a one time event, such as justification would require). Verse 16 answers the future tense question of verse 15 “shall we sin?” The present tense “you are” in verse 16 also points in this direction. The righteousness is explicitly linked to sanctification in verse 19, which describes this righteousness as leading to holiness. Then, verse 21 describes the fruit of the previous way of life as contrasted with the fruit of the present way of life. Fruit is sanctification language, not justification language.        

Okay, that’s a hokey name for a post, but it fits. I’ve been gone to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America all last week. Met many new people, and renewed many old friendships. It was a great time, although I missed the family terribly (and vice versa, they tell me). Anyway, I thought I’d give a few indications of what is coming up in the coming weeks. I have the next installment of Gary Johnson’s review of Muether’s biography of Van Til, a summary of an article that Lane Tipton and Jeff Jue wrote just recently in reply to several critiques of what Westminster Seminary has done with Enns (actually, it is a direct critique of part of Enns’s book), the start of some exegetical studies on paedo-communion, continuation of the debate with Doug Wilson, and a few more sermons, not to mention book reviews, when I get squeeze them in. That ought to keep me busy for quite awhile!

I am a vested interest by-stander. I am a graduate of WTS (MAR, ‘99). I studied under such as Gaffin, Ferguson, Davis, Enns, Green, etc. I have fond affection and appreciation for all the men under whom I studied. I am appreciative of and supportive of the mission of WTS. I pray for God to yet bless it with more success than its great past record.

Full disclosure: I am also persuaded that Enn’s hermeneutic moves in heterodox directions. My point in this post however, is not to debate that or prove it. You see, what I think really does not matter at this point.

After all, I am only a vested interest by-stander.

And so are you a vested interested by-stander: pastor, layman, alumnus, current student. What you think is not as important right now as how  you handle yourself.

As vested interest by-standers, we have more responsibilities than we do rights in these matters. We have the right to expect those responsible to seek the truth and to do so consistent with the high standards of grace and mercy reflecting our Savior full of grace and full of truth.

Yet beyond this we really have responsibilities; responsibilities to behave ourselves in a way becoming the gospel we profess. 

It is wrong for whisper campaigns to be prosecuted against Pete Enns. It is wrong to prosecute whisper campaigns against Pete Lillback, Carl Trueman, et.al. By whisper campaign I am including innuendo, fact-less accusations, etc. Again the issue here is not whether or not the charge of heterodoxy in Enn’s hermeneutic is valid. The issue is how we, as by-standers with vested interests behave.

I too have first-hand knowledge of some of the things going on. I too, like Lane, have sought not to use such information in the discussions here at GreenBagginses, precisely because it would not serve toward achieving the goal at hand. If at the end of the day Enn’s defenders say, “we have evidence of x-y-z sin by his critics” and critics of Enns say, “we too have evidence o x-y-z sin by his defenders,” then we actually are in agreement - such behavior no matter where it is sourced is wrong!

I think we need to realize that these men, both WTS leadership and Enns, by necessity of the matter, must be circumspect in how much they discuss and divulge. Such confidentiality is not necessarily a mark of nefariousness. It is rather (I am persuaded) a mark of wisdom, maturity and humility.

I believe the audio of the special WTS chapel in which WTS’ president and board chairman answered student’s questions give a demonstration of how not to behave. The students whose questions I heard all seemed have an underlying presupposition that Enns’ has been the subject of injustice. Thus, the questioner asked a question intended to evoke an answer that would prove this injustice.

Given the nature of the question, delving into areas that must be maintained in confidence at this point, the president and chairman came across as evasive to those pre-convinced of their bent toward injustice for Enns. Rather than act with maturity and trust for men who have not given reason to not be trusted, this only served to prove the presupposition of the students.

I fully expect the retort, “you haven’t seen and heard other clearly egregious things,” proving that there is a nefarious bent toward injustice. My response is quite simple: I’m not naive and I have done my own research. I am persuaded that there is another valid explanation:

·     Enns’ views in question are problematic for some.

·     There is a certain procedure they must follow; a procedure intended to promote justice, truth and peace for all involved, including Enns.

·     Such a procedure is one which, if acted out in public would unnecessarily harm people involved, Enns and/or his critics.

If you have formed your opinion of nefariousness based on the report of another, I challenge you to not give credence to it. I’ve been through such affairs before. I plead with you; recognize that the one sharing such accusations is behaving in a way not consistent with the gospel of peace and purity. God will not honor such behavior. When you go off and act upon convictions based on such sources, you are setting yourself up for the Lord’s chastisement. Often such chastisement is experienced by God giving you more and more self-fulfilling prophecy, to the end that you destroy yourself. I’ve seen this pattern first hand. By God’s mercy I’ve been kept from it myself.

If you are young in experience as a churchman, that is if you have few years under your belt serving as a elder in a reformed denomination, let me urge you (as one who made such a mistake) to refrain from the foolish sinfulness of assuming that you have wisdom beyond your years. The book learning of seminary is wonderful. It takes the humbling crucible of ministry to move such ministry from head to heart, where real wisdom from Christ is found.

There are always two sides to any story. Even more, when even just a few additional factors are added (e.g., players, events, issues), the sides multiply exponentially. That is the case here with these circumstances.

Far too many (often current students) have in public manners spoken egregiously against Enns’ critics. Such blog sites as Save Our Seminary are sadly full of anonymous comments that publicly defame men such as Lillback and Trueman, in a manner they cannot biblically address even if they were guilty of some of the things laid at their feet.

Enns’ critics believe at least some of his positions are heterodox. Rather than shame him in public manners such as blogdom, they’ve chosen to pursue such convictions consistent with their vows to WTS and to Enns himself. It is a shame to Enns when those who purport to support him contra these men act in a manner that is ungodly. Would that some of Enn’s supporters think about this before they open their mouths.

Men such as Lillback and Trueman, like Enns, are men who leave clay foot prints when walking in the rain. They are also men who have demonstrated a credible profession of faith. When they are vilified by Enns’ defenders we bring shame on the Church and her Lord.

This is not the world, where we debate things in an auditorium packed with hand-picked supporters from both sides, before CNN cameras, ask questions designed to make things interesting, and then try to persuade others through spin that our guy is right. This is the Church. How  we handle such things reflects on Christ’s witness in the world (cf., John 17:20 ff.).

The matters before Enns and the WTS leadership are very important. For them, finding the truth is most important. But for us, merely vested interest bystanders, HOW  we handle ourselves in these matters is more important than the outcome.

Reed DePace

TE, PCA

Pardon me for all the sermon posts immediately below. I am trying to catch up. Obviously, I don’t expect readers to read all of them. I still have quite a few more to post in the next few days before I’m caught up.

I am currently on vacation in sunny southern California. I jump from -15 to 60-65 is very welcome (especially for my wife!). I won’t be back until Wednesday, and not really back in the office until Thursday. So, I suppose this is an invitation to the other posters to step up and fill some gaps in the posting until then. 

Due to current circumstances, and the exit of AAPC from the PCA, my services as an assistant prosecutor are no longer needed. I have tendered my resignation to Sam Duncan, and so I am free to take up blogging about the FV again. Many, many thanks to those who have helped carry the load during my absence. I am not going to kick them off. They may post anytime they wish. However, I would like to resume my debate with Douglas Wilson (maybe not today, but soon). We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

If you’ve been waiting to get this resource all at once, you will not have to wait too much longer. Highly recommended.