Just in case Scott Clark decides the following costituted “FV advocacy”, I’ll post it here too. Its in response to Gilman’s response to Colvin re Lillback on Zwingli
Got that? :)
(BTW, Lillback says of Z’s view “men will make errors in their attempts to judge if someone is elect or not. But God’s word or law is absolutely reliable. If the law declares that God’s people belong to him, one must receive it as the truth, until the law shows that they do not belong to him as in the case of an adult unbeliever from a Christian family”)
my comment on the HB is
“I’m trying to restrict myself to responding to claims about things I think are incorrect. If that constitutes “advocacy” I’m sorry.
I’m not trying to claim that Zwingli was ‘Proto FV”. It just seemed to me that from the quotes and Lillback’s comments, that more was involved (not sure *what* exactly, but ‘more’) than the judgement of Charity. Generally, we talk about the judgement of charity as our provisional uncertain viewpoint. But Zwingli, according to Lillback says we “receive” this as “truth” from “God’s law”
I’m totally open to the possibility that Lillback or Zwingli are wrong. Are you saying either of them are?”
Paul, when you read those comments, can you reasonably conclude that Zwingli sounds anything like Steve Wilkins does here?:
“The elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect — they are cut off from the Elect One and thus, lose their elect standing. But their falling away doesn’t negate the reality of their standing prior to their apostasy. They were really and truly the elect of God because of their relationship with Christ. (The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons: Debating the Federal Vision, page 261)”
I don’t have Lillback’s book, but if you and Matt Colvin are accurately representing Lillback, then he is misrepresenting Zwingli. The most you could say about Zwingli from these comments is that he believes that all infants who are “in the elect” or “among the elect” or “of the people of God,” and who die in infancy, are elect. Otherwise, he only seems to be making an argument about a judgment of charity.
Here are a few things you will have to resolve to persuade me that Zwingli is talking like Wilkins:
Zwingli says: “It is sure that with God no one is of his people or of his sons except he whom he has elected, and it is also sure that every one is his whom he has elected.” In this statement he is talking about the eternally elect. For Zwingli, none are elect but those who, if they survive infancy, will ultimately be conformed to the image of the Son, and who will by faith be justified, sanctified and glorified.
Here are some more quotes which, when read in context, don’t fit in with the FV attempt to make Zwingli sound FV. I won’t comment on each one:
It is equally true: He is predestined, therefore saved, and he is elect, therefore saved. Do you not see that whatever is in this chain and precedes faith is equally with faith followed by salvation? For “Who is elect shall be saved” is as true as “Who hath believed shall be saved.”
For if this is true, then that antecedent determination or purpose or predestination of God would not be free, but election would follow then finally, when faith had rendered the man suitable for election.
Second, since those alone who have heard and afterward either believe or remain in their unfaith are subject to our judgment, we err gravely in judging the infant children both of the Gentiles and of Christians.
(1) All judgment of ours about others is uncertain so far as we are concerned, but certain as regards God and his law. E. g., when it is said to an apostle: I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God, the apostle thinks him who says this of the elect because of the certitude of the word. But they sometimes deceive who thus confess, as did Simon Magus and the false brethren who came in secretly to betray the liberty of the gospel. But God himself is not deceived, nor does the law deceive, for God knows the hearts and reins, i. e., the inmost parts, and the law, if all is just and right, does also not deceive, but is eternal. Therefore we ever judge according to the law, as has been said, and the law for the sake of one or many may not be considered the less universal. (2) The other reason is such as all may not receive, but to me it is sure. All of those infants who are within the elect, who die, are elect.
But I return to my subject. Manifest then from all that precedes are those two inferences. That those two sayings: Who believeth, etc., and Who believeth not, etc., are not a touch-stone by which we may measure the salvation of infants, and that we condemn impiously not only the true children of Christians, but those of Gentiles. They alone are subject to our judgment of whom we have the word according to which we can judge. I think I have also satisfied those who say: If by election we come to God Christ is in vain. For this is election, that whom the Lord has destined to eternal salvation before the world was, he equally predestinated, before the world was, to be saved through his Son, as Paul teaches in Eph. i. 4.
Oliver Twist, by Charles Dickens; Justification, by John Fesko; The Wheel of Time, by Robert Jordan; Recovering the Reformed Confessions, by Scott Clark; Brief Outline of Theology, by Friedrich Schleiermacher; Principles of Sacred Theology, by Abraham Kuyper
Books I am now reading
Exodus commentaries; Matthew commentaries; Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology; Baker's new history of the church
Books for future reading
Turretin's Institutes; Joseph Caryl on Job, German encyclopedias of theology