Green Baggins

Under Doctrine of the Church (Carolina Memorial), question 2, we find some key statements about interpretation of Paul, and also about systematic and biblical theology.

Wilkins starts out with a very flimsy defense indeed. After accusing the SCP of misquoting him, he adds in the rest of the sentence. As if adding “The clear implication of these passages” actually answers the query sent by SCP! As if the SCP hadn’t ever read the passages quoted! As if Paul is automatically and without argumentation against the SCP! Since Wilkins’s argumentation on those pages is woefully inadequate in dealing with alternate understandings of the verses in question, we can hardly grant that this is sufficient defense. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely zero detailed exegesis of those supposed passages referred to except for John 15. I have dealt with this exegesis here. He simply assumes that quoting them proves his point. The flimsiness of this defense is evident in the word “appear” in the phrase “the apostles appear to attribute these same things to all the members of the visible church without distinction.” Furthermore, is not this sentence evidence of his not really believing in ontological distinctions within the visible church? Certainly his eisegesis of John 15 points in that direction.

It is very important what Wilkins says on page 10: “My question in light of what WLC affirms (and which I also affirm) is this, ‘How can Paul say that these things are true of the members of the church in Corinth and in what sense are they true?’ Whatever our answer to this question, it seems clear then that Paul is not using these terms in the same way that the Westminster Confession defines them.” His disagreement with the WCF is even more clear when he says “our understanding of salvation from a systematic (Westminsterian) theology standpoint has difficulty accommodating these passages…better way.” Regarding the first quotation, since Wilkins hasn’t even begun to deal with the judgment of charity, which deals quite easily with every single one of the passages he asserts, we can hardly expect to be convinced that his interpretation is correct. If you shove more than half the evidence under the mat, how can you be called a scholar? If we say “judgment of charity,” then it is extremely easy to see that Paul is in fact using those terms in the same way as the WCF uses them. But if Paul never does use these terms in the same way as the WCF uses them, then why isn’t Wilkins advocating changes to the WCF? If the WCF doesn’t accurately reflect Paul, then why should he follow it? He says that his understanding of covenant is a better way of dealing with such passages. That is, his way of understanding covenant is better than the WCF’s way of understanding those passages. Hubris indeed.

It has come to my attention in the debates surrounding various posts of mine here that a methodological question needs to be raised. Various people have hinted at it, but Chris’s comments brought it rather starkly to light.

A parable: a Jehovah’s Witness claims up one side and down the other that Jesus is Mighty God (via Isaiah 9:6. They do say that this passage refers to Jesus. However, then what they say is this: “He is not *Al*mighty God, only Mighty God. Oh, and they will also put “God” in lower-case letters. If one were to ask them “Do you believe that Jesus is God?” They can say “yes.” But they qualify it such that they really don’t say it. One could conceivably keep on pushing the JW to state whether or not they believe Jesus to be God, and theoretically, they could still keep on saying “yes.” But we know that they don’t mean it.

FV guys do the same thing. We will accuse them of denying the visible/invisible church distinction. They will say, “No fair! I said it here, here and here.” But then, if you look at how they define it, they have qualified it away. This is absolutely true of Wilkins, as I have more than demonstrated in my previous post. The same is true of imputation in justification in Lusk. He says he believes in imputation in one place, but then he will say that imputation is redundant in another. It cannot be both, friends. The truth of imputation cannot be expressed simply by union with Christ, since the RCC church also believes in union with Christ. I am really, really tired of FV supporters thinking that it is a good argument to say “He said this over here,” when we, as critics, actually acknowledge it most of the time. I have been extremely careful in this regard in my posts on Wilkins’s exam. In fact, this caution is clearly in evidence with regard to the visible/invisible church distinction. The real issue is this: is the theology consistent with the WCF (or 3FU) everywhere? 

So then, what I mean is that Lusk, for instance, in taking away imputation (saying it is redundant, that is) has taken away what is distinctive from the Reformed position vis-a-vis Rome wrt justification. Rome believed in union with Christ. This is the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, par 790 (pg. 227): “Believers who respond to God’s word and become members of Christ’s Body, become intimately united with him: ‘In that body the life of Christ is communicated to those who believe, and who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ in his Passion and glorification.’ (quote is from Lumen Gentium 7) This is especially true of Baptism, which unites us to Christ’s death and Resurrection, and the Eucharist, by which ‘really sharing in the body of the Lord,…we are taken up into communion with him and with one another’ (quote from Lumen Gentium 7).”

The question that imputation deals with is this: “How does the righteousness of Jesus become mine?” The answer cannot simply be union with Christ, since that does not differentiate us from Rome. Rome would say that the righteousness of Christ comes by way of union with Him and receiving the infusion of Christ’s righteousness. See CCC pars. 2019-2023. The Reformation says that the righteousness of Jesus Christ comes to us by way of imputation, not by infusion. This was the entire debate with regard to justification in the Reformation. Some might say “that is a terrible argument, to argue that Rome said this, and therefore we cannot believe that.” That’s not what I’m arguing, actually. What I’m saying is that the Reformation had major differences with Rome over justification. What were the nature of those differences? If we say the same thing as Rome, then we have denied that we are Reformed. That’s what I’m arguing.

Has Lusk dealt with the Rome question of imputation? That is, has he anywhere detailed why it is that saying imputation is redundant does not also take away the barrier to Rome? How does he differentiate his view from Rome? One would presume he would want to do so.

So, let’s cut through the methodological double-speak and ask the right question: is the FV theology compatible at every point with the WCF (or 3FU)?

Here we get to the doctrine of the church, which is in some ways the linch-pin to this whole debate. How does one define the church?

Here Wilkins is guilty of nothing less than talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he says that he “wholeheartedly affirm(s) this distinction as the Westminster Confession defines the invisible church.” He then proceeds to define the invisible church in a manner completely incompatibile with WCF 25.

First of all, he says that “the invisible Church does not yet exist though it is surely foreordained by God and will surely and certainly exist at the last day.” This completely vitiates the doctrine of the invisible church. WCF says explicitly that the the invisible church consists (note the PRESENT tense) of all the elect.

Then he says that “the category of ‘invisible church’ can lead us to all sorts of misunderstandings and misconceptions.” Well, this certainly sounds like “wholeheartedly affirming this distinction.” It’s a bit like saying, “I wholeheartedly believe in God, but there are significant problems with the category of ‘God.’ The qualification does away with the assertion.

The way he prefers to define the invisible church (and he agrees with Doug Wilson here) is as the eschatological church. But this is to erase the distinction as it is in place now. The WCF does not say “the invisible church will be in existence in the future.” It says “the invisible church consists.” By the way, it should be carefully noted that saying “invisible” and “eschatological” are not even remotely the same thing. The doctrine of the invisible church has always meant that there is a distinction within the church in the present between the elect and the non-elect. Saying “eschatological” erases that distinction. Now, Wilkins would probably say that he affirms the distinction within the church now. The problem is that he has no basis left for saying that. I have said before that the reason why the Reformers harped on this distinction is because the Roman Catholic Church kept asking the Reformers “Where was your church for the last 1500 years?” The only answer and defense that the Reformers could give was “we were the invisible church, existing by faith.” If that distinction is not in the present, then there is no justification for the Reformers to be the true church. So, in denying the WCF definition of the invisible church, Wilkins takes the rug out from under the Reformers. Therefore, it is not true at all that his “accusers are simply disagreeing with (his) argument rather than proving that (he) denies the WCF definition of the church.”

Wilkins assumes that which is to be proved when he takes this pot shot at %90 of the Reformed world: “Indeed, it seems to me that they are often the ones who deny the distinction between the ‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ Church in that they attribute those things the apostles say to be true of the visible Church exclusively to the invisible Church. The visible Church is denigrated as being nothing more than a pale and imperfect reflection of the ‘true’ church (which is, in their minds, the ‘invisible’ church, the abode of the elect).” I must confess that I lost my cool when I read this absolutely hideous slander. Which Reformed theologian did he have in mind who denigrates the Church? Which Reformed theologians are the ones denying the distinction? Presumably he is referring to the Central Carolina Presbytery. He just accused an entire Presbytery of heresy. Now, if you are a Wilkins supporter reading this, just put yourself for one minute in the place of one of Wilkins’s critics. What does this sentence sound like? I will leave that question hanging in the air for a minute. “Infuriating” is the word that comes to mind, however.

He contradicts himself again in just one sentence when he says, “It is important for us to recognize the fact of the mixed nature of the Church in history, but this does not mean that there is such a thing as an ‘invisible Church’ of which you must become a member.” Hello? And again, he misunderstands the position of those who hold to the distinction, when he accuses them of denying the creeds of the church (one holy catholic, etc. church). So anyone who says that one must become a member of the invisible church by faith denies the creeds of the church. So much for the PPT together document. In a single stroke, he has accused the majority of the Reformed world of heresy.

How in the world do the Calvin quotes support his position? They quite simply don’t. At the most, they support what I have already demonstrated (and am entirely comfortable with, by the way!); namely, that there is a general election (which includes *none* of the benefits given to the elect), and a special election. The quotation from Inst. 3.2.11 is taken grossly out of context. He is missing all sorts of qualifications that Calvin puts on such a statement, as anyone who is unbiased can tell. Time and time again in that section, Calvin distinguishes clearly between the elect and the reprobate within the church: “only those predestined to salvation receive the light of faith and truly feel the power of the gospel…almost the same feeling (but obviously not quite) as the elect…his goodness may be tasted without the Spirit of adoption…only in the elect does that confidence flourish…as God regenerates only the elect with incorruptible seed…that lower working of the Spirit…the reprobate never receive anything but a confused awareness of grace, so that they grasp a shadow rather than the firm body of it. For the Spirit, strictly speaking, seals forgiveness of sins in the elect alone.” And then, to cap it off, Wilkins doesn’t quote the remainder of the sentence, “Yet the reproabte are justly said to believe that God is merciful toward them, for they receive the gift of reconciliation, although confusedly and not distinctly enough. Not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God, but because they seem, under a cloak of hypocrisy, to have a beginning of faith in common with the latter…they do not attain the full effect and fruition thereof. He does not show himself merciful to them, to the extent of truly snatching them from death and receiving them into his keeping.” These quotes heavily qualify the particular quote that Wilkins yanks out of context. All of what I have quoted comes from the very same section of the Institutes.

I will skip over I.4 and I.5, since little of substance was addressed there. I will, therefore, move on to section II, dealing with the Memorial from Central Carolina Presbytery. The first question has to do with election. Personally, the first question isn’t a very helpful one. The third question is the important one. I think that Wilkins thinks the same about the first question, as he says, “I’m not quite sure how to answer this question.” For me, the question is not “Does Wilkins affirm the decretal election taught in the WCF?” He has said on many occasions that he does. The real question is this: “Does his view of covenantal election contradict/undermine the teaching of the WCF on decretal election?” Or, we could ask it this way: “Is Wilkins consistent with the WCF when he teaches ‘covenantal election?'” This is the far more important question. Fortunately, Wilkins’s response to this question actually addresses the more important question. We will therefore be dealing with II.1-3.

In answer to the first question, Wilkins asserts that he has always taught the WCF definition of election. He gives a quotation from his Federal Vision article to prove it. Then he says “I then follow this affirmation of the traditional view with a discussion of how the word “elect” functions in various passages of the Bible…We do believe, however, that the terms ‘elect,’ ‘chosen,’ etc., are often used in the Scriptures to refer to those who are members of the visible church (e.g., Col 3:12; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Pe 1:1-2) and not restricted to those who were chosen to eternal salvation. To affirm this, however, does not require a denial of the teaching of the Confession.”

Now, it is certainly the case that the Bible uses the term “choose” and “election” to refer to a corporate body in the Bible. See Calvin’s Institutes 3.21.5, which quotes Deut 32:8-9, Deut 7:7-8, Deut 10:14-15 to prove his point. In fact, Calvin says “sanctification is enjoined upon them because they have been chosen as his ‘special people'” (pg. 927). This corporate election is plainly losable. This is what Calvin says: “Also the prophets often confront the Jews with this election, to the latters’ displeasure and by way of reproach, since they had shamefully fallen away from it” (pg. 927). However, the implications of such an election are not even remotely taken in the same direction as Wilkins takes them. Calvin adds “a second, more limited degree of election, or one in which God’s more special grace was evident” (pg. 929). This is of individual Israelites, as the context of Calvin’s discussion immediately makes plain. Note here Calvin’s use of the term “special grace.” The grace in these two “elections” is by no means the same. Calvin clarifies further down the page: “But I had good reason to say that here we must note two degrees, for in the election of a whole nation God has already shown that in his mere generosity he has not been bound by any laws but is free, so that equal apportionment of grace is not to be required of him. The very inequality of his grace proves that it is free.” On the next page, he equivocates not at all, but says that salvation is to be attributed only to the more narrow, limited degree of election: “His free election has been only half explained until we come to individual persons, to whom God not only offers salvation but so assigns it that the certainty of its effect is not in suspense or doubt…Therefore Paul skillfully argues from the passage of Malachi (in Rom 9) that I have just cited that where God has made a covenant of eternal life and calls any people to himself, a special mode of election is employed for a part of them, so that he does not with indiscriminate grace effectually elect all.” He stops clearly short of attributing regeneration to the “general election,” when he says “It is easy to explain why the general election of a people is not always firm and effectual: to those with whom God makes a covenant, he does not at once give the spirit of regeneration that would enable them to persevere in the covenant to the very end. Rather, the outward change, without the working of inner grace, which might have availed to keep them, is intermediate between the rejection of mankind and the election of a meager number of the godly” (930). The reason I have quoted so copiously from Calvin is that Wilkins claims his views to be from Calvin, and to show that, though there are superficial similarities between them, the difference is deep indeed.

This quotation is from the revised version of the AAPC statement: : “the Bible does not explain the distinction between the nature of the work of the Spirit in the reprobate and the nature of His work in the elect, and even uses the same language for both.” Calvin is very clear: there is an enormous difference between what happens to the decretally elect versus what happens to those who are not, though in covenant. That Calvin is actually addressing this issue is plain from the wording “a part of them.” Regeneration is not given to everyone who is part of the covenant. The AAPC statement still has this completely wrong: the Bible does not use the same language of justification, sanctification, adoption, election, glorification, etc. for the elect as for the non-elect covenantal members. The example used by the AAPC to make its point is not actually to the point, since the Spirit coming upon Saul and the Spirit coming upon David must be explained by the rest of Scripture. Though we can surely take from that passage that the common operations of the Spirit can often look like the real work of regeneration, it is not said to be regeneration. Saul was never regenerated. What happens in the AAPC statement is this leap of logic: since one cannot ordinarily distinguish between the common operations of the Spirit and the “real thing,” and that the Bible seemingly says the same thing about both categories of people, that therefore there must be some ontological reality corresponding to this. Nowhere does “judgment of charity” even get a head-nod.

BOQ God, however, mysteriously has chosen to draw some into the covenant community who are not elect unto eternal salvation. These non-elect covenant members are truly brought to Christ, united to Him in the Church by baptism and receive various gracious operations of the Holy Spirit. Corporately, they are part of the chosen, redeemed, Spirit-indwelt people. Sooner or later, however, in the wise counsel of God, these fail to bear fruit and fall away. In some sense, they were really joined to the elect people, really sanctified by Christ’s blood, really recipients of new life given by the Holy Spirit. God, however, has chosen not to uphold them in the faith, and all is lost. They break the gracious new covenant they entered into at baptism. EOQ (from the AAPC revised statement)

Here again we have too much attributed to general election. Such people are never redeemed, and they are certainly never “really joined to the elect people, really sanctified by Christ’s blood, really recipients of new life given by the Holy Spirit.” This is the problem. There is no qualification given to this except the very vague “in some sense.” In guarding the WCF concerns, it is never enough to say “Oh, I believe in it.” It must also be thoroughly guarded at every point in one’s theology. Clarifications and qualifications must be present, especially when engaging in statements such as this.