The Report says (3.D.1) says, “However, the FV tendency to identify covenant and election in an unqualified manner renders saving election loseble, election being conditional upon covenant faithfulness.”
Statements like this seem far removed from the actual testimony of FV authors. What follows are some statements from John Barach (“Covenant and Election” in The Federal Vision) which disprove the above claim.
a. “God has predestined some people who deserve eternal damnation to eternal glory with Christ instead, while not predestining others. This is the Bible’s teaching from Genesis 1:1 on through the whole of Scripture. God didn’t predestine anyone to glory because of something in that person, but simply out of His sheer love and grace in Christ. God initiates, not because He sees anything in us, but out of sheer grace. That predestining choice is unchangeable. The number of people who will enter into final glory is the number of people God always intended to enter into final glory with Christ. That predestining choice is unthwartable” (17).
b. “Deuteronomy 7 is one of the passages that teach us unconditional election: ‘Not because you were great in number, but because God loved you and He is faithful to His oath.’ In Deuteronomy 9:4-6 God goes further and says that He isn’t blessing Israel because of her righteousness, either. Her blessings weren’t due to anything in Israel herself. It was entirely God’s grace” (26).
c. “We are God’s chosen people, not because of anything in ourselves, not because of anything we have done, but because of His sheer grace” (27).
d. “We need to hold three things together as we think about the relationship between covenant and election. First, God has eternally predestined an unchanging number of people out of the whole world to eternal glory with Christ. We read that in Genesis 1:1 on. We know that from Ephesians 1:11: God “works all things after the counsel of His will.” Second, God’s covenant includes some who have been so predestined to eternal glory with Christ, but it also includes other who have not been predestined to eternal glory with Christ but who will apostatize. Third God addresses His people as a whole, and that includes each one in the covenant, head for head, as His elect” (31-32).
e. “On the last day we will look back and we will see God’s grace every inch of the way. God gave us life. God worked in all the details in our lives. God, in grace, united to us in Christ, the Elect One, and He kept us in Him. He worked in us to will and to work (Phil.2:13). He worked in us so that we responded to Him in faith and trust and we persevered. We owe it all to Him, to His choice, to His grace. We will enter into final glory with Christ exactly according to God’s eternal predestinating decree” (38).
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (12): Covenant, Election and Salvation (b)
The report alleges that FV teaching on covenant, election and salvation diverges in at least two ways from the doctrine of the Three Forms of Unity (3.D.1). The first is that FV teaching fits the profile of the Remonstrant error rejected by the Canons of Dort — namely, that there are two kinds of election, one general and indefinite and the other particular and definite (see RoE 1:2). This strikes me as a convenient attempt to dismiss FV teaching (a theological sleight of hand), but proves upon some investigation to be grasping at straws.
First of all, there is nothing at all theologically aberrant about distinguishing kinds of election. Both Berkhof and Bavinck distinguish different kinds of election—namely, the corporate election of the nation Israel in the Old Covenant and the individual election of believers in the New Covenant. The problem with Berkhof and Bavinck (am I allowed to disagree??) is that they seem to make this distinction along historical and not categorical lines. Thus, election was corporate in the old covenant and individual in the new covenant. This strikes me as incipient dispensationalism.
I’m far more comfortable with the Reformer John Calvin who recognizes that the corporate/individual distinction is operative in both covenants. In this connection he writes, “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” (Institutes, 3.21.7).
Then there’s the contemporary Reformed theologian John Frame who in The Doctrine of God also distinguishes between historical election and decretal election. He writes, “As not all Israelites are Israel (9:6), so not all members of the Christian church are regenerate believers. Some are elect only as the unbelieving Israelites were: historically elect, rather than eternally elect. Like Saul and Judas, they are chosen only temporarily; they can become non-elect. So the election of the visible Christian church is similar to the election of Old Testament Israel. It is an election that temporarily includes some within its bounds who will never come to true faith and will never have eternal life. This parallel between the church and Israel should not be surprising because the church and Israel are, contrary to dispensationalism, the same body . . .” (322).
Later he writes, “But in Scripture there is also an election that cannot be lost and that is not at all conditioned on human faithfulness or works . . . So those who are “in Christ” who belong to him inwardly and not merely outwardly, who are the true Israel, can never lose their salvation. They are elect in a stronger sense than was the nation of Israel as a whole and in a stronger sense than is the general membership of the visible Christian church” (325).
In rejecting the error of various kinds of divine election the Canons of Dort envision the Arminians who conceive an election “to justifying faith, without being decisive to salvation” (RoE, 1:2). Federal Vision folk don’t believe decretal election is conditional. They do believe historical election is conditional because historical election corresponds to covenant.
The difficulty here is that Federal Vision proponents say simultaneously (a) only some in the church are decretally elect and (b) all in the church must believe they are decretally elect. It’s the (b) that people can’t get their heads around. But recall what I wrote in my previous post. At baptism, the Triune God promises forgiveness, justification, inclusion among the assembly of the elect in life eternal, etc. These promises are not predictions awaiting fulfilment, but declarations summoning faith.
May a baptized person doubt the validity of God’s promise that He will present him one day among the assembly of the elect in life eternal? No. Even though unbelief negates the saving power of the promise, nothing can negate the validity of the promise. The promise, because it’s God’s promise, is necessarily indubitable, inviolable and trustworthy.
First of all, there is nothing at all theologically aberrant about distinguishing kinds of election. Both Berkhof and Bavinck distinguish different kinds of election—namely, the corporate election of the nation Israel in the Old Covenant and the individual election of believers in the New Covenant. The problem with Berkhof and Bavinck (am I allowed to disagree??) is that they seem to make this distinction along historical and not categorical lines. Thus, election was corporate in the old covenant and individual in the new covenant. This strikes me as incipient dispensationalism.
I’m far more comfortable with the Reformer John Calvin who recognizes that the corporate/individual distinction is operative in both covenants. In this connection he writes, “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” (Institutes, 3.21.7).
Then there’s the contemporary Reformed theologian John Frame who in The Doctrine of God also distinguishes between historical election and decretal election. He writes, “As not all Israelites are Israel (9:6), so not all members of the Christian church are regenerate believers. Some are elect only as the unbelieving Israelites were: historically elect, rather than eternally elect. Like Saul and Judas, they are chosen only temporarily; they can become non-elect. So the election of the visible Christian church is similar to the election of Old Testament Israel. It is an election that temporarily includes some within its bounds who will never come to true faith and will never have eternal life. This parallel between the church and Israel should not be surprising because the church and Israel are, contrary to dispensationalism, the same body . . .” (322).
Later he writes, “But in Scripture there is also an election that cannot be lost and that is not at all conditioned on human faithfulness or works . . . So those who are “in Christ” who belong to him inwardly and not merely outwardly, who are the true Israel, can never lose their salvation. They are elect in a stronger sense than was the nation of Israel as a whole and in a stronger sense than is the general membership of the visible Christian church” (325).
In rejecting the error of various kinds of divine election the Canons of Dort envision the Arminians who conceive an election “to justifying faith, without being decisive to salvation” (RoE, 1:2). Federal Vision folk don’t believe decretal election is conditional. They do believe historical election is conditional because historical election corresponds to covenant.
The difficulty here is that Federal Vision proponents say simultaneously (a) only some in the church are decretally elect and (b) all in the church must believe they are decretally elect. It’s the (b) that people can’t get their heads around. But recall what I wrote in my previous post. At baptism, the Triune God promises forgiveness, justification, inclusion among the assembly of the elect in life eternal, etc. These promises are not predictions awaiting fulfilment, but declarations summoning faith.
May a baptized person doubt the validity of God’s promise that He will present him one day among the assembly of the elect in life eternal? No. Even though unbelief negates the saving power of the promise, nothing can negate the validity of the promise. The promise, because it’s God’s promise, is necessarily indubitable, inviolable and trustworthy.
Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (11): Covenant, Election and Salvation (a)
As I continue my interaction with the URCNA FV report I’m going to skip ahead a few pages to get to the heart of the matter—the evaluation of FV emphases (3.D), the first of which addresses the themes of covenant, election and salvation (3.D.1)
Here the Report alleges that FV folk teach that “when God covenants with His people (believers and their children), He graciously elects them to a true and saving communion with Himself. . . . With respect to the doctrine of justification, this means that all covenant members enjoy all gospel benefits, including justification, by virtue of their membership in Christ and His Church.”
It strikes me that this statement either (a) fails to recognize important FV nuances and distinctions or (b) chooses to regard these nuances and distinctions as equivocation (of a seemingly deliberate malicious variety).
I’m willing to concede that FV writers occasionally lack clarity and thereby increase the potential for confusion. But I must admit simultaneously that I have yet to hear someone talk about election, covenant and salvation so coherently that my mind is completely put at ease. Don’t these issues necessarily transport us to a realm where our intellects are often unsatisfied? That’s the conclusion the Canons of Dort reaches in 1:18 and I’m happy to endorse it.
Part of the burden of FV writers is to stress that though not everyone in the covenant is (decretally, eternally or eschatologically) elect, everyone in the covenant must believe the promise that, in the words of the historic Reformed baptismal form, “the Holy Spirit will dwell in us and make us living members of Christ, imparting to us what we have in Christ, namely, the cleansing from our sins and the daily renewal of our lives, till we shall finally be presented without blemish among the assembly of God’s elect in life eternal.”
Moreover, FV writers want us rightly to understand the character of ‘promise’ in this baptismal form. The language of promise leads some to think of salvation as primarily future or eschatological, i.e., we ultimately saved “on the day of the Lord” (1 Cor.5:5). That’s certainly very Pauline and therefore very appropriate. But ‘promise’ here has especially the sense of a present declaration of Christ’s work which must be embraced by faith. So what corresponds to promise, in this understanding, is not fulfilment (a fulfilled promise ceases to be a promise), but faith. The Heidelberg Catechism in Lord’s Day 7, for example, teaches that we must believe all that promised us in the gospel—summarized in the articles of the Christian faith (the Apostles’ Creed)—and this refers not to future redemptive acts, but to the present presentation of past redemptive acts.
With this understanding we can make sense of what the Heidelberg Catechism says when it teaches that God promises us that He “graciously grants us forgiveness of sins” (Answer 66), that we have received forgiveness of sins from God, are renewed by the Holy Spirit and sanctified to be members of Christ (Answer 70), that we are “truly cleansed from our sins” (Answer 73). This is the content of the promise which must be believed again and again.
There's a wonderful essay about all of this by Cornelis Trimp, entitled, “The Promise of the Covenant” in a festschrift for Jelle Faber entitled, Unity and Diversity. Interestingly, Trimp in this essay faults Klaas Schilder for failing to recognize this in his monograph, Looze Kalk.
The point is that we must preach the promise to the baptized congregation: “Your sins are forgiven.” If some refuse to believe the “promise,” the validity of the promise remains, though its saving power is lost.
So we can say that all covenant members enjoy all the gospel benefits insofar as all covenant members are promised justification, sanctification and inclusion among the eschatologically elect. But the promise here, however, is not a prediction awaiting fulfilment, but a declaration summoning faith.
Where can you read more about this? In John Barach’s essay, “Covenant and Election” in The Federal Vision. More to follow on this point.
Here the Report alleges that FV folk teach that “when God covenants with His people (believers and their children), He graciously elects them to a true and saving communion with Himself. . . . With respect to the doctrine of justification, this means that all covenant members enjoy all gospel benefits, including justification, by virtue of their membership in Christ and His Church.”
It strikes me that this statement either (a) fails to recognize important FV nuances and distinctions or (b) chooses to regard these nuances and distinctions as equivocation (of a seemingly deliberate malicious variety).
I’m willing to concede that FV writers occasionally lack clarity and thereby increase the potential for confusion. But I must admit simultaneously that I have yet to hear someone talk about election, covenant and salvation so coherently that my mind is completely put at ease. Don’t these issues necessarily transport us to a realm where our intellects are often unsatisfied? That’s the conclusion the Canons of Dort reaches in 1:18 and I’m happy to endorse it.
Part of the burden of FV writers is to stress that though not everyone in the covenant is (decretally, eternally or eschatologically) elect, everyone in the covenant must believe the promise that, in the words of the historic Reformed baptismal form, “the Holy Spirit will dwell in us and make us living members of Christ, imparting to us what we have in Christ, namely, the cleansing from our sins and the daily renewal of our lives, till we shall finally be presented without blemish among the assembly of God’s elect in life eternal.”
Moreover, FV writers want us rightly to understand the character of ‘promise’ in this baptismal form. The language of promise leads some to think of salvation as primarily future or eschatological, i.e., we ultimately saved “on the day of the Lord” (1 Cor.5:5). That’s certainly very Pauline and therefore very appropriate. But ‘promise’ here has especially the sense of a present declaration of Christ’s work which must be embraced by faith. So what corresponds to promise, in this understanding, is not fulfilment (a fulfilled promise ceases to be a promise), but faith. The Heidelberg Catechism in Lord’s Day 7, for example, teaches that we must believe all that promised us in the gospel—summarized in the articles of the Christian faith (the Apostles’ Creed)—and this refers not to future redemptive acts, but to the present presentation of past redemptive acts.
With this understanding we can make sense of what the Heidelberg Catechism says when it teaches that God promises us that He “graciously grants us forgiveness of sins” (Answer 66), that we have received forgiveness of sins from God, are renewed by the Holy Spirit and sanctified to be members of Christ (Answer 70), that we are “truly cleansed from our sins” (Answer 73). This is the content of the promise which must be believed again and again.
There's a wonderful essay about all of this by Cornelis Trimp, entitled, “The Promise of the Covenant” in a festschrift for Jelle Faber entitled, Unity and Diversity. Interestingly, Trimp in this essay faults Klaas Schilder for failing to recognize this in his monograph, Looze Kalk.
The point is that we must preach the promise to the baptized congregation: “Your sins are forgiven.” If some refuse to believe the “promise,” the validity of the promise remains, though its saving power is lost.
So we can say that all covenant members enjoy all the gospel benefits insofar as all covenant members are promised justification, sanctification and inclusion among the eschatologically elect. But the promise here, however, is not a prediction awaiting fulfilment, but a declaration summoning faith.
Where can you read more about this? In John Barach’s essay, “Covenant and Election” in The Federal Vision. More to follow on this point.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (10): Things I Liked about the Report
A friend suggested that my critique of the report might be more palatable if I expressed in these posts some things about the report I appreciated. That's of course sound advice from a wise friend, and I think my failure to begin on a positive note was a tactical misstep. So here are some things I appreciated about the Committee's work.
1. I think that the study Committee wisely judged early on that any URCNA evaluation of the FV must be based on Scripture and the Three Forms of Unity ("not the Westminster Standards," p.6). This is not because the WS are so evil, but because they are not among the doctrinal standards of the URCNA. I'm disappointed, however, that the Committee was unable to abide by this judgment, given the numerous appeals to WS language and formulations.
2. The Committee also rightly understood that it was not "a judicial committee," but an investigative committee. If it were a judicial committee it would have been obligated to cross-examine each of the FV proponents under suspicion. In my understanding, it would have been a healthy expression of Christian charity to interact with FV men, though I'm not convinced it was absolutely necessary. I do think the Committee could have saved itself a lot of time by running its assessments of FV teaching by its proponents.
3. The Committee correctly understood that FV proponents differ among themselves and that it would "violate biblical standards of conduct to proceed on the assumption" that they are unified on everything. This is a great statement, though I doubt it was always respected.
4. The Committee also judged that the conclusions of their report should be received not as a supplement to the Confessions, but as an application of the Confessions. I'll have more to say about this later, but for the time I respect that the committee was deliberate in viewing their conclusions as intra-confessional, rather than extra-confessional recommendations.
1. I think that the study Committee wisely judged early on that any URCNA evaluation of the FV must be based on Scripture and the Three Forms of Unity ("not the Westminster Standards," p.6). This is not because the WS are so evil, but because they are not among the doctrinal standards of the URCNA. I'm disappointed, however, that the Committee was unable to abide by this judgment, given the numerous appeals to WS language and formulations.
2. The Committee also rightly understood that it was not "a judicial committee," but an investigative committee. If it were a judicial committee it would have been obligated to cross-examine each of the FV proponents under suspicion. In my understanding, it would have been a healthy expression of Christian charity to interact with FV men, though I'm not convinced it was absolutely necessary. I do think the Committee could have saved itself a lot of time by running its assessments of FV teaching by its proponents.
3. The Committee correctly understood that FV proponents differ among themselves and that it would "violate biblical standards of conduct to proceed on the assumption" that they are unified on everything. This is a great statement, though I doubt it was always respected.
4. The Committee also judged that the conclusions of their report should be received not as a supplement to the Confessions, but as an application of the Confessions. I'll have more to say about this later, but for the time I respect that the committee was deliberate in viewing their conclusions as intra-confessional, rather than extra-confessional recommendations.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (9): Interesting Usage of the Word "Full"
On p.19, the report misrepresents the teachings of FV folk by curiously repeating the word "full" as in: "the claim of FV authors that all covenant members without exception . . . enjoy a full and saving union with Christ." Then later, "since the baptism of the children of believers effectively unites them to Christ and grants them full participation in His saving work."
This seems to be the exact opposite of what FV folk say. FV folk stress that a person can apostatize. Whatever blessings and privileges baptized folk enjoy -- and the apostle Paul thinks there are many--- there are obviously some things those who apostatize lack. How can you apostatize if you have a full and saving union with Christ?
I repeat what Doug Wilson says in his Presbytery examination.
69. If a person apostatizes, does he lose salvation---justification, sanctification, etc---or does he demonstrate that he was never saved?
"He does not lose something that was never his personal possession to begin with. This means he does not lose the imputed obedience of Jesus Christ, which he never had."
I would think that full participation in Christ's saving work would mean at least 'having' the imputed obedience of Jesus Christ. Wilson is asserting that the baptized member who apostatizes never had it.
This seems to be the exact opposite of what FV folk say. FV folk stress that a person can apostatize. Whatever blessings and privileges baptized folk enjoy -- and the apostle Paul thinks there are many--- there are obviously some things those who apostatize lack. How can you apostatize if you have a full and saving union with Christ?
I repeat what Doug Wilson says in his Presbytery examination.
69. If a person apostatizes, does he lose salvation---justification, sanctification, etc---or does he demonstrate that he was never saved?
"He does not lose something that was never his personal possession to begin with. This means he does not lose the imputed obedience of Jesus Christ, which he never had."
I would think that full participation in Christ's saving work would mean at least 'having' the imputed obedience of Jesus Christ. Wilson is asserting that the baptized member who apostatizes never had it.
Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (8): The Marginalization of the Sacraments
In the FV Report (p.19) we find this apparent summary of the FV position, "By virtue of their baptism, believers and their children are constituted members of Christ and participate in the fullness of His redemptive work on their behalf. All of the benefits of Christ's saving mediation are imparted to all those who are incorporated into the covenant community by means of baptism."
Thankfully, making the allegation doesn't make it true. The Joint FV Report, signed by all the noteworthy offenders, says, "Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning." That's worth repeating, this time in bold and italics. "Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning."
In the 2005 Summary Statement of AAPC's Position, it says (#6): "Baptism in itself does not, however, guarantee final salvation. What is offered in baptism may not be received because of unbelief." That's worth repeating, in bold and italics: "What is offered in baptism may not be received because of unbelief."
In his essay "Paedobaptism and Baptismal Efficacy" in The Federal Vision Rich Lusk writes, "Baptismal efficacy raises a red flag for many in the Reformed community. In part, this is due to the specter of ex opere operato from the Medieval Church and is very understandable. We must carefully guard against any view that would lead people to believe that simply because they have been baptized, all is well no matter how they live their lives. In this sense, baptism does not automatically guarantee salvation. We must combine the waters of baptism with a living faith."
I'll resist the impulse here to repeat with bold and italics.
Peter Leithart, in response to questions put to him by the Pacific Northwest Presbytery in May, 2005, said, "In some sense, sacraments never fail to work. A baptized person is always different after he's been baptized. I don't mean to be flippant, but the chief difference is that he's been baptized; he wears the mark of Christ, and is called to serve Him . . . I agree that the sacraments are efficacious by the blessings of Christ and the work of the Spirit, and that the sacraments are means of salvation to believers. (Italics original)."
In the statements cited above FV folk, with striking clarity, deny that the sacraments have saving power by themselves.
Thankfully, making the allegation doesn't make it true. The Joint FV Report, signed by all the noteworthy offenders, says, "Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning." That's worth repeating, this time in bold and italics. "Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning."
In the 2005 Summary Statement of AAPC's Position, it says (#6): "Baptism in itself does not, however, guarantee final salvation. What is offered in baptism may not be received because of unbelief." That's worth repeating, in bold and italics: "What is offered in baptism may not be received because of unbelief."
In his essay "Paedobaptism and Baptismal Efficacy" in The Federal Vision Rich Lusk writes, "Baptismal efficacy raises a red flag for many in the Reformed community. In part, this is due to the specter of ex opere operato from the Medieval Church and is very understandable. We must carefully guard against any view that would lead people to believe that simply because they have been baptized, all is well no matter how they live their lives. In this sense, baptism does not automatically guarantee salvation. We must combine the waters of baptism with a living faith."
I'll resist the impulse here to repeat with bold and italics.
Peter Leithart, in response to questions put to him by the Pacific Northwest Presbytery in May, 2005, said, "In some sense, sacraments never fail to work. A baptized person is always different after he's been baptized. I don't mean to be flippant, but the chief difference is that he's been baptized; he wears the mark of Christ, and is called to serve Him . . . I agree that the sacraments are efficacious by the blessings of Christ and the work of the Spirit, and that the sacraments are means of salvation to believers. (Italics original)."
In the statements cited above FV folk, with striking clarity, deny that the sacraments have saving power by themselves.
Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (7): The Church with an Invisibility Cloak
The URCNA FV Report says (p.16) of the distinction between visible/invisible church, "its most basic function is to acknowledge that not all professing believers and their children, who belong to the concrete, visible expression of Christ's church in the world, are truly saved and members of Christ by faith."
I'm interested in the adverb 'truly.' It seems to imply that there is a sense in which you can be saved and yet not enter eschatological rest. I suppose the report is stressing that objective membership in the redeemed community does not guarantee final salvation. But isn't that precisely what FV folk are saying??
Reformed theologians have long quibbled about the invisible/visible distinction. I was taught in seminary by Cornel Venema who preferred the language of "unsurveyable" to "invisible." The illustration he used in class was of a penny under a mattress. A penny under a mattress can't be seen, but that doesn't make it invisible.
Here I would repeat the words of Dr. Jelle Faber, "Allow me to say to my Presbyterian brothers, 'One of yourselves, one of your own prophets, has said so.' I refer to the essay of John Murray in his Collected Writings, entitled, "The Church: Its Definition in Terms of 'Visible' and 'Invisible' Invalid." This from Faber's essay, "The Doctrine of the Church in the Reformed Confessions" in Essays in Reformed Doctrine.
Both Murray and Faber were of course willing to grant, as all FV folk are, that there are invisible aspects to the church. Murray points out, however, that the church in the New Testament "never appears as an invisible entity and therefore may never be defined in terms of invisibility."
Faber in fact questioned whether the distinction between invisible church and visible church "infringed" upon the truth of the Nicene Creed, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."
FV folk prefer the definition of the church given in the Heidelberg Catechism, as the gathering Church and the gathered church. The gathering Church is what Wilson terms the historical Church and the gathered church, the eschatological church.
Like the FV individuals I know, I am prepared to make all sorts of distinctions within the church between believers and unbelievers, between the faithful and the delinquent, between the sincere and the hypocrite, between the sheep and the goats, between fruitful branches and unfruitful branches. These distinctions approximate the Bible's own language (why won't that do here?). The visible/invisible distinction to me seems far removed from the text of Scripture.
Here are the affirmations and denials in the Joint Federal Vision Statement:
We affirm that there is only one true Church, and this Church can legitimately be considered under various descriptions, including the aspects of visible and invisible. We further affirm that the visible Church is the true Church of Christ, and not an "approximate" Church.
We deny that such a distinction excludes other helpful distinctions, such as the historical church and eschatological church. The historical Chruch generally correspends to the visible Church---all thsoe who profess the true religion, together with their children---and the eschatological Church should be understood as the full number of God's chosen as they will be seen on the day of the resurrection.
This looks very good. Where do I sign?
I'm interested in the adverb 'truly.' It seems to imply that there is a sense in which you can be saved and yet not enter eschatological rest. I suppose the report is stressing that objective membership in the redeemed community does not guarantee final salvation. But isn't that precisely what FV folk are saying??
Reformed theologians have long quibbled about the invisible/visible distinction. I was taught in seminary by Cornel Venema who preferred the language of "unsurveyable" to "invisible." The illustration he used in class was of a penny under a mattress. A penny under a mattress can't be seen, but that doesn't make it invisible.
Here I would repeat the words of Dr. Jelle Faber, "Allow me to say to my Presbyterian brothers, 'One of yourselves, one of your own prophets, has said so.' I refer to the essay of John Murray in his Collected Writings, entitled, "The Church: Its Definition in Terms of 'Visible' and 'Invisible' Invalid." This from Faber's essay, "The Doctrine of the Church in the Reformed Confessions" in Essays in Reformed Doctrine.
Both Murray and Faber were of course willing to grant, as all FV folk are, that there are invisible aspects to the church. Murray points out, however, that the church in the New Testament "never appears as an invisible entity and therefore may never be defined in terms of invisibility."
Faber in fact questioned whether the distinction between invisible church and visible church "infringed" upon the truth of the Nicene Creed, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."
FV folk prefer the definition of the church given in the Heidelberg Catechism, as the gathering Church and the gathered church. The gathering Church is what Wilson terms the historical Church and the gathered church, the eschatological church.
Like the FV individuals I know, I am prepared to make all sorts of distinctions within the church between believers and unbelievers, between the faithful and the delinquent, between the sincere and the hypocrite, between the sheep and the goats, between fruitful branches and unfruitful branches. These distinctions approximate the Bible's own language (why won't that do here?). The visible/invisible distinction to me seems far removed from the text of Scripture.
Here are the affirmations and denials in the Joint Federal Vision Statement:
We affirm that there is only one true Church, and this Church can legitimately be considered under various descriptions, including the aspects of visible and invisible. We further affirm that the visible Church is the true Church of Christ, and not an "approximate" Church.
We deny that such a distinction excludes other helpful distinctions, such as the historical church and eschatological church. The historical Chruch generally correspends to the visible Church---all thsoe who profess the true religion, together with their children---and the eschatological Church should be understood as the full number of God's chosen as they will be seen on the day of the resurrection.
This looks very good. Where do I sign?
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (6): Missing Evidence
I found the Report's section on "Law and Gospel in the Covenant" (pp.15-16) to be peculiar. I doubt whether any FV folk would deny a distinction between law and gospel in terms of justification. All FV folk recognize that the law cannot save and that the gospel does.
What we have here are insinuations and allegations but surprisingly no documentary evidence to suggest that FV folk might be saying what the report alleges they are saying. Given the absence of proof readers of the report should not attach too much weight to the allegations in these paragraphs.
From my recollection of reading FV material the subject of law and gospel was raised in connection with a perceived need to reclaim the Calvinistic view that the law, though condemnatory in terms of justification, is a wonderful source of delight for the redeemed (as in Psalm 119) and that the gospel, though undemanding in terms of justification, makes demands which must be obeyed by the redeemed (e.g., Romans 10:16).
What concerns FV folk, and ought to concern us all, is that law-gospel hermeneutic which categorizes every passage in Scripture in terms of either law or gospel. Law passages are those with imperatives which necessarily drive us to despair. Gospel passages are those with indicatives which promise forgiveness.
Thus, when we hear the command "Do not fear" in the Bible we are supposed to be driven to despair because this command can't be kept and therefore is unduly burdensome. This is a variant of Lutheranism so bizarre Luther himself would object. It's not hard to illustrate the absurdity of this hermeneutic.
Interestingly, the report cites a peculiar view of Norman Shepherd that "works of the law" in Romans refers to "works performed to merit acceptance with God" which I don't believe is shared by any others in the general FV orbit.
It's questionable, in fact, whether Norman Shepherd views himself as FV. He didn't sign the Joint FV Statement (I suspect he wasn't asked because he wasn't thought to be part of the group). I really don't know why Shepherd is lumped with the FV folk in this report, and no explanation is given.
What we have here are insinuations and allegations but surprisingly no documentary evidence to suggest that FV folk might be saying what the report alleges they are saying. Given the absence of proof readers of the report should not attach too much weight to the allegations in these paragraphs.
From my recollection of reading FV material the subject of law and gospel was raised in connection with a perceived need to reclaim the Calvinistic view that the law, though condemnatory in terms of justification, is a wonderful source of delight for the redeemed (as in Psalm 119) and that the gospel, though undemanding in terms of justification, makes demands which must be obeyed by the redeemed (e.g., Romans 10:16).
What concerns FV folk, and ought to concern us all, is that law-gospel hermeneutic which categorizes every passage in Scripture in terms of either law or gospel. Law passages are those with imperatives which necessarily drive us to despair. Gospel passages are those with indicatives which promise forgiveness.
Thus, when we hear the command "Do not fear" in the Bible we are supposed to be driven to despair because this command can't be kept and therefore is unduly burdensome. This is a variant of Lutheranism so bizarre Luther himself would object. It's not hard to illustrate the absurdity of this hermeneutic.
Interestingly, the report cites a peculiar view of Norman Shepherd that "works of the law" in Romans refers to "works performed to merit acceptance with God" which I don't believe is shared by any others in the general FV orbit.
It's questionable, in fact, whether Norman Shepherd views himself as FV. He didn't sign the Joint FV Statement (I suspect he wasn't asked because he wasn't thought to be part of the group). I really don't know why Shepherd is lumped with the FV folk in this report, and no explanation is given.
Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (5): Imposition of Westminster Confession of Faith
In point 3.A.3, the URCNA FV Report talks about the pre-fall covenant. Interestingly, the exposition of this doctrine significantly borrows from the Westminster confessional tradition, even though office-bearers in the URCNA are not required to subscribe to the standards of that tradition. On p. 3 the report provides reasons why the FV Study committee decided not to reproduce the findings of other denominational reports on FV.
"However, since our churches subscribe to the three Forms of Unity, not the Westminster Standards, it was the Committee's judgment that our mandate called for an independent report that would evaluate the FV understanding of justification and other related teachings from the standpoint of the Scriptures and these confessional standards" (emphasis mine, BDJ).
By the time we reach p.13 it seems that judgment is all but forgotten. When the so-called covenant of works is explained there's conspicuously no reference to or citation of the Three Forms of Unity (there is a reference in footnote 19 to BC Arts.21-22 which don't mention a covenant of works). What we do encounter, however, are generous citations of the Westminster Confession of Faith VII:1-3. All of this of course begs the question, if this is so important for URCNA office-bearers to embrace, why isn't it found in the doctrinal standards of the URCNA?
The Report states, borrowing language from the Westminster Confession, "The aim of this covenant was to grant to Adam and his posterity the blessing of eternal life and glorification in unbreakable commuion with God 'upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.' The promise of this original covenant relationship was an implicit promise of eternal life, which was sacramentally signified and sealed by means of the "tree of life" in the Garden of Eden (Gen.3:24)."
I find it interesting that the late Dr. Jelle Faber who contested the doctrine of a meritorious covenant of works in several Clarion articles some years ago cited Belgic Confession, article 24 which states, "Therefore we do good works, but not for merit. For what could we merit. We are indebted to God, rather than He to us, for the good works we do." (So we can't locate support for a meritorious covenant of works in the Three Forms, but we can locate an argument against it.)
Surely, this applies just as much to the prelapsarian context as it does the postlapsarian context. John Calvin thought so. In his commentary on Romans 11:35, he writes, "Even if man were perfect, he could bring nothing to God by which to procure His favour, because as soon as man begins his existence, he is already by the very law of creation so bound to his Maker that he has nothing of his own. We, therefore, fail if we endeavour to deprive God of His right to do freely what He pleases with the creatures whom He has made, as though it were a matter of mutual debt and credit."
It seems the report doesn't want to find any grace in the prelapsarian context. John Calvin was insistent, interestingly, that the tree of life stood in the garden as "a sacrament of God's grace." The sign of the tree of life was intended to lead Adam 'to the knowledge of divine grace' (Comm.
Gen.2.9).
In his essay, "Law and Grace in Ursinus' Doctrine of the Natural Covenant: A Reappraisal" in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (eds. Carl Trueman and R. Scott Clark. UK: Paternoster, 1999) Lyle Bierma writes: "Ursinus too always presents this primal relationship in the context of divine grace — in both the Cat. maior and the commentary on Heidelberg Commentary." The prelapsarian relationship is "surrounded by grace." When Adam and Eve fell, "they robbed themselves and all their descendants of that grace of God." voluntaria inobedientia se et universam posteritatem suam illa Dei gratia spoliarunt (From Lang, Der Heidelberger Katechismus).
I find it curious that on page 14 the report put terms such as "wages," "due" and "merit" in quotation marks. This is a striking admission that in this prelapsarian context we're not talking about wages, dues and merit, strictly speaking. But this is the issue!!!! I'm sure the FV folk would gladly sign on.
The report (p.13) also indicates that eternal life was something promised to Adam upon the condition of obedience. This begs the question, wasn't the life Adam was living before the fall "eternal life"?
I suspect the difficulties FV folk have with the covenant of works is either with the formulation in the Westminster Confession or with Klinean insistence on strict merit. I'm quite sure all FV folk would heartily agree that there was more in store for Adam than the life he was living prior to his fall and that he had to be obedient in order to be translated into that "more in store." There you have all the important elements in the so-called covenant of works.
The FV take on the covenant of works is no different than Calvin's, Bavinck's, De Graaf's, Hoekema's, Hoeksema's, Murray's and Faber's. Looks like a pretty impressive list of Reformed theologians to me.
"However, since our churches subscribe to the three Forms of Unity, not the Westminster Standards, it was the Committee's judgment that our mandate called for an independent report that would evaluate the FV understanding of justification and other related teachings from the standpoint of the Scriptures and these confessional standards" (emphasis mine, BDJ).
By the time we reach p.13 it seems that judgment is all but forgotten. When the so-called covenant of works is explained there's conspicuously no reference to or citation of the Three Forms of Unity (there is a reference in footnote 19 to BC Arts.21-22 which don't mention a covenant of works). What we do encounter, however, are generous citations of the Westminster Confession of Faith VII:1-3. All of this of course begs the question, if this is so important for URCNA office-bearers to embrace, why isn't it found in the doctrinal standards of the URCNA?
The Report states, borrowing language from the Westminster Confession, "The aim of this covenant was to grant to Adam and his posterity the blessing of eternal life and glorification in unbreakable commuion with God 'upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.' The promise of this original covenant relationship was an implicit promise of eternal life, which was sacramentally signified and sealed by means of the "tree of life" in the Garden of Eden (Gen.3:24)."
I find it interesting that the late Dr. Jelle Faber who contested the doctrine of a meritorious covenant of works in several Clarion articles some years ago cited Belgic Confession, article 24 which states, "Therefore we do good works, but not for merit. For what could we merit. We are indebted to God, rather than He to us, for the good works we do." (So we can't locate support for a meritorious covenant of works in the Three Forms, but we can locate an argument against it.)
Surely, this applies just as much to the prelapsarian context as it does the postlapsarian context. John Calvin thought so. In his commentary on Romans 11:35, he writes, "Even if man were perfect, he could bring nothing to God by which to procure His favour, because as soon as man begins his existence, he is already by the very law of creation so bound to his Maker that he has nothing of his own. We, therefore, fail if we endeavour to deprive God of His right to do freely what He pleases with the creatures whom He has made, as though it were a matter of mutual debt and credit."
It seems the report doesn't want to find any grace in the prelapsarian context. John Calvin was insistent, interestingly, that the tree of life stood in the garden as "a sacrament of God's grace." The sign of the tree of life was intended to lead Adam 'to the knowledge of divine grace' (Comm.
Gen.2.9).
In his essay, "Law and Grace in Ursinus' Doctrine of the Natural Covenant: A Reappraisal" in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (eds. Carl Trueman and R. Scott Clark. UK: Paternoster, 1999) Lyle Bierma writes: "Ursinus too always presents this primal relationship in the context of divine grace — in both the Cat. maior and the commentary on Heidelberg Commentary." The prelapsarian relationship is "surrounded by grace." When Adam and Eve fell, "they robbed themselves and all their descendants of that grace of God." voluntaria inobedientia se et universam posteritatem suam illa Dei gratia spoliarunt (From Lang, Der Heidelberger Katechismus).
I find it curious that on page 14 the report put terms such as "wages," "due" and "merit" in quotation marks. This is a striking admission that in this prelapsarian context we're not talking about wages, dues and merit, strictly speaking. But this is the issue!!!! I'm sure the FV folk would gladly sign on.
The report (p.13) also indicates that eternal life was something promised to Adam upon the condition of obedience. This begs the question, wasn't the life Adam was living before the fall "eternal life"?
I suspect the difficulties FV folk have with the covenant of works is either with the formulation in the Westminster Confession or with Klinean insistence on strict merit. I'm quite sure all FV folk would heartily agree that there was more in store for Adam than the life he was living prior to his fall and that he had to be obedient in order to be translated into that "more in store." There you have all the important elements in the so-called covenant of works.
The FV take on the covenant of works is no different than Calvin's, Bavinck's, De Graaf's, Hoekema's, Hoeksema's, Murray's and Faber's. Looks like a pretty impressive list of Reformed theologians to me.
Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (4): Failure to Respect Levels of Discourse
The FV Report, under Covenant and Election (p.12), says,
"Without emphasizing the necessary response of faith to the covenant promise, a faith that savingly unites the believer to Christ and His benefits, Barach wants to affirm that all covenant members are individually elect and true beneficiaries of the [sic] Christ's saving work with all of its benefits."
The statement fails to discern the nuances of what John Barach wrote. In his essay entitled "Covenant and Election" in The Federal Vision (eds. Wilkins and Garner), Barach writes of those who apostatize,
"Using our traditional theological and confessional language, we would say that these were non-elect members of the covenant. Using Calvin's terminology, these people were "generally elect" but not "specially elect." Using the language of Scripture, they were among God's chosen people. They were the people God addresses as elect . . . Though He predestined these people to enter His covenant, He did not predestine their perseverance" (p.37).
John here is distinguishing levels of discourse. Typically, in the Reformed confessions and in volumes of Reformed systematic theology, the elect has an eschatological referent, denoting the the specific number of individuals who will occupy the new earth. In light of this referent, those who apostatize are "non-elect members of the covenant." In the writings of John Calvin, who in places distinguishes general election from special election, those who apostatize are "generally elect" but not "specially elect."
John here is distinguishing a biblical level of discourse from theological/confessional levels of discourse. In the theological enterprise this is entirely legitimate. We often define sanctification, for example, as that lifelong process by which the Spirit of Christ gradually renews us and makes us holy. We recognize, however, that when Paul says that "the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife" he's probably using 'sanctification' is a non-theological sense. Life would be so much easier if words always meant the same thing.
John is arguing that Scripture---he's thinking especially of passage such as Ephesians 1 and 2 Peter 2---teaches us to view the covenant community as God's elect. But he has explicitly admitted he is not using the word 'elect' here in "traditional theological and confessional language."
John here is feeding off the insights of Benne Holwerda who wrote a remarkable essay entitled "De verkiezing in de Schrift" in a volume of his essays entitled, Populair-wetenschappelijke bijdragen. On exegetical grounds, Holwerda was inclined to see every instance of "election" or "choosing" in the Bible as historical (and not necessarily eternal). He was not denying the Canons of Dort; he was arguing that the Bible sometimes uses terms differently than the Confessions. Klaas Schilder disagreed with Holwerda but regarded their differences as confessionally intramural.
Interestingly, it's this usage of the word 'election' that we find in the Heidelberg Catechism which defines the church as "community chosen for eternal life" and invites the catechumen to say, "I am and always will be a living member."
Barach writes, "The Heidelberg Catechism links the doctrine of election here with the doctrine of the Church. In a warm and pastoral way, it teaches all the Church's children, those who have been grafted into the Church through baptism (Q & A 74) to confess [this] together with the whole Church" (p.41).
Lastly, apparently John did not "emphasize the necessary response of faith to the covenant promise." In this particular essay I'm citing I see John indicating the need for faith on pp.26, 28, 31, 33, 37, 38, etc.
His entire chapter concludes with (p.39), "Left to myself, I would most assuredly fall away, but in Christ I can be confident because no one who trusts in Him is ever put to shame (Isa.28:16; Rom.10:11). As we look to Christ in faith, as we trust God who speaks to us these words so rich with promise, the Spirit works in us so that we do persevere. There's no room for presumption in God's covenant. The warnings apply to every covenantal member, but there is also no room and no need for worry: "Am I really elect?" We believe God's promise and we live in terms of it."
Here I see John emphasizing the necessary response of faith to the covenant promise.
"Without emphasizing the necessary response of faith to the covenant promise, a faith that savingly unites the believer to Christ and His benefits, Barach wants to affirm that all covenant members are individually elect and true beneficiaries of the [sic] Christ's saving work with all of its benefits."
The statement fails to discern the nuances of what John Barach wrote. In his essay entitled "Covenant and Election" in The Federal Vision (eds. Wilkins and Garner), Barach writes of those who apostatize,
"Using our traditional theological and confessional language, we would say that these were non-elect members of the covenant. Using Calvin's terminology, these people were "generally elect" but not "specially elect." Using the language of Scripture, they were among God's chosen people. They were the people God addresses as elect . . . Though He predestined these people to enter His covenant, He did not predestine their perseverance" (p.37).
John here is distinguishing levels of discourse. Typically, in the Reformed confessions and in volumes of Reformed systematic theology, the elect has an eschatological referent, denoting the the specific number of individuals who will occupy the new earth. In light of this referent, those who apostatize are "non-elect members of the covenant." In the writings of John Calvin, who in places distinguishes general election from special election, those who apostatize are "generally elect" but not "specially elect."
John here is distinguishing a biblical level of discourse from theological/confessional levels of discourse. In the theological enterprise this is entirely legitimate. We often define sanctification, for example, as that lifelong process by which the Spirit of Christ gradually renews us and makes us holy. We recognize, however, that when Paul says that "the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife" he's probably using 'sanctification' is a non-theological sense. Life would be so much easier if words always meant the same thing.
John is arguing that Scripture---he's thinking especially of passage such as Ephesians 1 and 2 Peter 2---teaches us to view the covenant community as God's elect. But he has explicitly admitted he is not using the word 'elect' here in "traditional theological and confessional language."
John here is feeding off the insights of Benne Holwerda who wrote a remarkable essay entitled "De verkiezing in de Schrift" in a volume of his essays entitled, Populair-wetenschappelijke bijdragen. On exegetical grounds, Holwerda was inclined to see every instance of "election" or "choosing" in the Bible as historical (and not necessarily eternal). He was not denying the Canons of Dort; he was arguing that the Bible sometimes uses terms differently than the Confessions. Klaas Schilder disagreed with Holwerda but regarded their differences as confessionally intramural.
Interestingly, it's this usage of the word 'election' that we find in the Heidelberg Catechism which defines the church as "community chosen for eternal life" and invites the catechumen to say, "I am and always will be a living member."
Barach writes, "The Heidelberg Catechism links the doctrine of election here with the doctrine of the Church. In a warm and pastoral way, it teaches all the Church's children, those who have been grafted into the Church through baptism (Q & A 74) to confess [this] together with the whole Church" (p.41).
Lastly, apparently John did not "emphasize the necessary response of faith to the covenant promise." In this particular essay I'm citing I see John indicating the need for faith on pp.26, 28, 31, 33, 37, 38, etc.
His entire chapter concludes with (p.39), "Left to myself, I would most assuredly fall away, but in Christ I can be confident because no one who trusts in Him is ever put to shame (Isa.28:16; Rom.10:11). As we look to Christ in faith, as we trust God who speaks to us these words so rich with promise, the Spirit works in us so that we do persevere. There's no room for presumption in God's covenant. The warnings apply to every covenantal member, but there is also no room and no need for worry: "Am I really elect?" We believe God's promise and we live in terms of it."
Here I see John emphasizing the necessary response of faith to the covenant promise.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (3): Failure to Recognize Nuance
Summarizing a FV view, the Report says (III.A.1):
"In this understanding of the administration of the covenant of grace in the course of the history of redemption, all those with whom God covenants genuinely enjoy salvation in union with the Triune God."
In some sense, this is a true statement. The question is: what is meant by "salvation" in this statement? The report seems to envision only one kind of salvation---eternal salvation. But is this how FV writers are employing the terms? Perhaps some FV statements will clarify . . .
a. The AAPC's Position on Covenant, Baptism and Salvation (April 3, 2005)
Point 4: "God works out His eternal decree of salvation in history by means of His covenant. Salvation, therefore, may be viewed from two basic perspectives, the decretal/eternal and the covenantal/historical. The Bible ordinarily (though not always) views election through the lens of covenant. This is why some covenant members are addressed consistently as God's elect, even though some of those covenant members may apostatize, proving themselves in the end not to have been among the number of those whom God decreed to eternal salvation from before the foundation of the world."
Here it is argued that among covenant members there are some who are not "among the number of those whom God decreed to eternal salvation from before the foundation of the world" (emphasis mine, BDJ)
Point 11: "All whom God has ordained to eternal life will surely be saved. But there is also another sense in which all those in the covenant are "saved." They have been delivered out of the world and brought into the glorious new creation in Christ (thus, the Scripture speaks of those who had "known the way of righteousness," "been cleansed from their former sins," have tasted of the heavenly gift," etc.) but not all will persevere in that "salvation."
Here it is explained in what sense all covenant members are saved. They are all saved in the sense that they belong to the redeemed community. Salvation here does not refer to eternal salvation. Notice that "saved" and "salvation" are in quotation marks. This indicates these words are not being used in the way they ordinarily are. The URCNA report itself speaks of "merit" because it recognizes that it's not merit, strictly speaking.
Footnote 2: "Illustrations of this abound in Scripture: In Jude (5) the Israelites are said to have been "saved" and then destroyed, because they did not persevere. Peter (2 Peter 2) speaks of a similar class of people. Redeemed by Christ, they then deny Him and are destroyed. All of these are given as warnings to new covenant believers lest they follow these examples of apostasy."
This further explains in what sense all covenant members are "saved" -- in the sense of the Israelites in Jude 5.
b. Joint Federal Vision Statement
Under the heading: The Sacrament of Baptism
"We deny that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church. We deny the common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration—i.e. that an “effectual call” rebirth is automatically wrought in the one baptized. Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning."
Here it is explicitly denied that baptism guarantees eternal salvation. Implication: not all those who are members of the covenant are eternally saved. The idea here is that though all baptized members are indeed part of the redeemed community, they will not all be part of the eschatological church.
c. Doug Wilson's Examination Questions
68. Can the elect lose their salvation? Can a "Christian" lose his salvation? Can an un-baptized believer lose his salvation?
"No, the elect cannot. A covenant-member Christian can fall from grace, be cut out of the vine, and can apostatize. No, a regenerate person who is not baptized cannot lose his salvation."
69. If a person apostatizes, does he lose salvation---justification, sanctification, etc---or does he demonstrate that he was never saved?
"He does not lose something that was never his personal possession to begin with. This means he does not lose the imputed obedience of Jesus Christ, which he never had. But he does lose something. The Scriptures speak of this with different metaphors, some emphasizing the discontinuity all the way back --- wheat/tares, brothers/false brothers, washed pig/dirty pig. Others emphasize the covenant continuity all the way back---Vine/branches, olive tree branches, etc. So such a person was never individually justified, effectually called, etc. But he is falling away from grace in some way. He was enlightened. He tasted the heavenly gift. He trampled underfoot the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified."
Conclusion: The report fails to acknowledge that 'salvation' for FV writers has different referents in different contexts. This is not equivocation on the part of FV writers; this is acknowledging diverse nuances in biblical vocabulary. Paul says that "women will be saved through childbearing" (1 Tim.2:15) and that God is "the Savior of all men, and especially those who believe" (1 Tim.4:10) and Peter says, "this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also" (1 Pet.3:21). Must we conclude that biblical writers use the word salvation in exactly the same way in each instance? I smell an exegetical fallacy.
"In this understanding of the administration of the covenant of grace in the course of the history of redemption, all those with whom God covenants genuinely enjoy salvation in union with the Triune God."
In some sense, this is a true statement. The question is: what is meant by "salvation" in this statement? The report seems to envision only one kind of salvation---eternal salvation. But is this how FV writers are employing the terms? Perhaps some FV statements will clarify . . .
a. The AAPC's Position on Covenant, Baptism and Salvation (April 3, 2005)
Point 4: "God works out His eternal decree of salvation in history by means of His covenant. Salvation, therefore, may be viewed from two basic perspectives, the decretal/eternal and the covenantal/historical. The Bible ordinarily (though not always) views election through the lens of covenant. This is why some covenant members are addressed consistently as God's elect, even though some of those covenant members may apostatize, proving themselves in the end not to have been among the number of those whom God decreed to eternal salvation from before the foundation of the world."
Here it is argued that among covenant members there are some who are not "among the number of those whom God decreed to eternal salvation from before the foundation of the world" (emphasis mine, BDJ)
Point 11: "All whom God has ordained to eternal life will surely be saved. But there is also another sense in which all those in the covenant are "saved." They have been delivered out of the world and brought into the glorious new creation in Christ (thus, the Scripture speaks of those who had "known the way of righteousness," "been cleansed from their former sins," have tasted of the heavenly gift," etc.) but not all will persevere in that "salvation."
Here it is explained in what sense all covenant members are saved. They are all saved in the sense that they belong to the redeemed community. Salvation here does not refer to eternal salvation. Notice that "saved" and "salvation" are in quotation marks. This indicates these words are not being used in the way they ordinarily are. The URCNA report itself speaks of "merit" because it recognizes that it's not merit, strictly speaking.
Footnote 2: "Illustrations of this abound in Scripture: In Jude (5) the Israelites are said to have been "saved" and then destroyed, because they did not persevere. Peter (2 Peter 2) speaks of a similar class of people. Redeemed by Christ, they then deny Him and are destroyed. All of these are given as warnings to new covenant believers lest they follow these examples of apostasy."
This further explains in what sense all covenant members are "saved" -- in the sense of the Israelites in Jude 5.
b. Joint Federal Vision Statement
Under the heading: The Sacrament of Baptism
"We deny that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church. We deny the common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration—i.e. that an “effectual call” rebirth is automatically wrought in the one baptized. Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning."
Here it is explicitly denied that baptism guarantees eternal salvation. Implication: not all those who are members of the covenant are eternally saved. The idea here is that though all baptized members are indeed part of the redeemed community, they will not all be part of the eschatological church.
c. Doug Wilson's Examination Questions
68. Can the elect lose their salvation? Can a "Christian" lose his salvation? Can an un-baptized believer lose his salvation?
"No, the elect cannot. A covenant-member Christian can fall from grace, be cut out of the vine, and can apostatize. No, a regenerate person who is not baptized cannot lose his salvation."
69. If a person apostatizes, does he lose salvation---justification, sanctification, etc---or does he demonstrate that he was never saved?
"He does not lose something that was never his personal possession to begin with. This means he does not lose the imputed obedience of Jesus Christ, which he never had. But he does lose something. The Scriptures speak of this with different metaphors, some emphasizing the discontinuity all the way back --- wheat/tares, brothers/false brothers, washed pig/dirty pig. Others emphasize the covenant continuity all the way back---Vine/branches, olive tree branches, etc. So such a person was never individually justified, effectually called, etc. But he is falling away from grace in some way. He was enlightened. He tasted the heavenly gift. He trampled underfoot the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified."
Conclusion: The report fails to acknowledge that 'salvation' for FV writers has different referents in different contexts. This is not equivocation on the part of FV writers; this is acknowledging diverse nuances in biblical vocabulary. Paul says that "women will be saved through childbearing" (1 Tim.2:15) and that God is "the Savior of all men, and especially those who believe" (1 Tim.4:10) and Peter says, "this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also" (1 Pet.3:21). Must we conclude that biblical writers use the word salvation in exactly the same way in each instance? I smell an exegetical fallacy.
Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (2): Factual Errors
The FV Study Committee Report includes several factual errors which I will begin to enumerate in this post and continue in a subsequent post.
(1) In the third paragraph under "A Brief Sketch of the Emergence of the Federal Vision," it states,
In January 2002, Rev. Steven Wilkins, pastor at the time of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Monroe, Louisiana, invited a number of speakers to the church's annual pastor's conference to articulate and defend their advocacy of the 'Federal Vision.'
This is untrue. At this juncture in history there was no movement or school of thought called "Federal Vision." The conference organizers simply wanted to dedicate a conference to the doctrine of the covenant, and since 'federal' means 'covenantal' they picked the name, "Federal Vision." It's a creative way of saying Covenantal Vision.
Steve Wilkins invited colleague-friends of his (Doug Wilson and Steve Schlissel), as well as Norman Shepherd. Shepherd was unable to attend the conference because of his wife's failing health. Several people, including Nelson Kloosterman, were asked for their opinion regarding a replacement and John Barach was recommended. John had written some material about the relationship between covenant and election in Christian Renewal and many were quite fond of John's insights.
This conference was a Pastor's conference with no agenda apart from a sound presentation of the biblical doctrine of the covenant. Each of the speakers, some of whom had no connection prior to the conference, had done some speaking or writing on the subject and was considered sufficiently qualified to lecture to other pastors about this.
In the minds of some, the conference was doomed for failure already here. Who are these men? None are seminary pastors. None have earned doctorates. None have been vetted (read Guy Waters for more on this). They were all basically fishermen. Utterly amazed, the professional theologians asked, "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?"
(2) The third paragraph goes on to say,
"Since Rev. Shepherd was unable to attend this meeting, Rev. John Barach, at the time a pastor of the Grande Prairie URC, was invited to speak in his place."
This is especially interesting for me since I was the pastor of the "Grande Prairie URC" in January, 2002 and I don't recall seeing John there. John was then the pastor of the Trinity Reformed Church in Lethbridge. Aside from this, the church in GP is called Covenant Reformed Church.
(3) The first full paragraph on p.9 says,
"The advocacy of children at the Lord's Table, which is one of the most common practical fruits of the FV understanding of the covenant of grace, has been addressed by the broader assemblies of the federation."
This ignores the fact that in 2002 only one of the speakers embraced paedocommunion. Two did not hold the position (Barach and Wilson) and the other (Schlissel) was and is vocally opposed. Moreover, many in the Canadian Reformed Churches, who have a similar view of the covenant's objectivity, are not convinced of paedocommunion. In a recent issue of Clarion, Clarence Bouwman expresses his appreciation for many of the tenets of FV, but voices his objections to paedocommunion.
(1) In the third paragraph under "A Brief Sketch of the Emergence of the Federal Vision," it states,
In January 2002, Rev. Steven Wilkins, pastor at the time of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Monroe, Louisiana, invited a number of speakers to the church's annual pastor's conference to articulate and defend their advocacy of the 'Federal Vision.'
This is untrue. At this juncture in history there was no movement or school of thought called "Federal Vision." The conference organizers simply wanted to dedicate a conference to the doctrine of the covenant, and since 'federal' means 'covenantal' they picked the name, "Federal Vision." It's a creative way of saying Covenantal Vision.
Steve Wilkins invited colleague-friends of his (Doug Wilson and Steve Schlissel), as well as Norman Shepherd. Shepherd was unable to attend the conference because of his wife's failing health. Several people, including Nelson Kloosterman, were asked for their opinion regarding a replacement and John Barach was recommended. John had written some material about the relationship between covenant and election in Christian Renewal and many were quite fond of John's insights.
This conference was a Pastor's conference with no agenda apart from a sound presentation of the biblical doctrine of the covenant. Each of the speakers, some of whom had no connection prior to the conference, had done some speaking or writing on the subject and was considered sufficiently qualified to lecture to other pastors about this.
In the minds of some, the conference was doomed for failure already here. Who are these men? None are seminary pastors. None have earned doctorates. None have been vetted (read Guy Waters for more on this). They were all basically fishermen. Utterly amazed, the professional theologians asked, "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?"
(2) The third paragraph goes on to say,
"Since Rev. Shepherd was unable to attend this meeting, Rev. John Barach, at the time a pastor of the Grande Prairie URC, was invited to speak in his place."
This is especially interesting for me since I was the pastor of the "Grande Prairie URC" in January, 2002 and I don't recall seeing John there. John was then the pastor of the Trinity Reformed Church in Lethbridge. Aside from this, the church in GP is called Covenant Reformed Church.
(3) The first full paragraph on p.9 says,
"The advocacy of children at the Lord's Table, which is one of the most common practical fruits of the FV understanding of the covenant of grace, has been addressed by the broader assemblies of the federation."
This ignores the fact that in 2002 only one of the speakers embraced paedocommunion. Two did not hold the position (Barach and Wilson) and the other (Schlissel) was and is vocally opposed. Moreover, many in the Canadian Reformed Churches, who have a similar view of the covenant's objectivity, are not convinced of paedocommunion. In a recent issue of Clarion, Clarence Bouwman expresses his appreciation for many of the tenets of FV, but voices his objections to paedocommunion.
Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (1): Introduction
The URCNA FV Study Committee Report has just been published. It's a thorough and substantial report which, as to be expected, has some excellent statements. There are, however, several features of the report which concern me and these I would like to enumerate and address on my blog.
Why do I care about this report? For several reasons. I am good friends and colleagues with many of the leading FV personalities. I've known John Barach, for example, for about 15 years. He and I were classmates at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in the mid-90s. John is among the brightest fellows I know, with a memory nearly photographic. While at M-ARS, where he aced all of his courses, John learned to read Dutch --- which enabled him eventually to translate Dr. Van Houwelingen's fine commentary on 1 Peter and important exegetical and theological material by Benne Holwerda. He also underwent some paradigm shifts at seminary in the trajectory of Klaas Schilder's theology. I remember him walking into class some mornings, with a Thomas Kuhn twinkle in his eye.
John and I were also huge fans of Norman Shepherd, whom we had met a number of times at the seminary. We had listened with great enthusiasm to the taped lectures on the covenant Shepherd gave at Mid-America in the mid-80s. We were delighted to see Shepherd at the seminary on occasion to deliver a chapel address or a lecture. Back then the seminary community, including faculty, was quite fond of Shepherd. I understand that today he's a persona non grata.
Aside from my friendships with FV personalities, I served on the advisory committee at Synod Schererville which recommended the appointment of this study committee. The advisory committee was tasked with making recommendations to synod regarding an overture from Classis Michigan to adopt the RCUS report on Justification. That sentiment was quickly discarded. The URCNA is not the RCUS, it was said, and Norman Shepherd, the subject of the RCUS report, was a minister in the CRCNA and not the URCNA.
On the other hand, the members of the advisory committee thought something should be done. FV theology was threatening the URCNA church. No one could cite an instance in the URCNA. No one could name a name. But sometimes a war is just even when you can't find Weapons of Mass Destruction.
So the advisory committee recommended two things (a) adopt nine points dealing with covenant theology (which, though unhelpful and at points confusing, are generally innocuous). The original nine points had been penned by Scott Clark, an instructor at Westminster Seminary in California, and passed to a delegate to take to this advisory committee meeting. They were tweaked (significantly in places) and then submitted to synod for adoption. Not exactly pristine Reformed church polity, but it happened; (b) appoint a study committee to investigate the FV position on justification in particular. Though this wasn't what any church or classis had requested, this is what we did.
On a personal note, I and others argued from the floor of synod for the adoption of the nine points (the lesser of two evils) in lieu of the appointment of this committee. It didn't happen. The nine points were adopted and the study committee was appointed. Van Dellen and Monsma rolled in their graves.
Moreover, I served as a minister in the URCNA for some 12 years. In that time period I developed lasting friendships with both parishioners in the churches I served and colleagues throughout the federation. I am concerned about the direction of the URCNA, should it adopt this report and its recommendations.
Today I'm a pastor in the Canadian Reformed Churches which has close ecumenical ties with the URCNA, so much so that there's a merger being planned. Folk in the Canadian Reformed Churches are rightly very sensitive to what's sometimes called "extra-confessional binding," the extra-confessional theological statements of synods which demand allegiance. Moreover, they are generally fond of the theologies of Schilder and Holwerda which, it seems, are now under attack in the URCNA. For some it brings back sad memories of an event they call 44.
I yearn for closer relations between Can Ref and URCNA. These relations are now in jeopardy. I want to do what I can to encourage the uniting of what is being fractured.
Why do I care about this report? For several reasons. I am good friends and colleagues with many of the leading FV personalities. I've known John Barach, for example, for about 15 years. He and I were classmates at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in the mid-90s. John is among the brightest fellows I know, with a memory nearly photographic. While at M-ARS, where he aced all of his courses, John learned to read Dutch --- which enabled him eventually to translate Dr. Van Houwelingen's fine commentary on 1 Peter and important exegetical and theological material by Benne Holwerda. He also underwent some paradigm shifts at seminary in the trajectory of Klaas Schilder's theology. I remember him walking into class some mornings, with a Thomas Kuhn twinkle in his eye.
John and I were also huge fans of Norman Shepherd, whom we had met a number of times at the seminary. We had listened with great enthusiasm to the taped lectures on the covenant Shepherd gave at Mid-America in the mid-80s. We were delighted to see Shepherd at the seminary on occasion to deliver a chapel address or a lecture. Back then the seminary community, including faculty, was quite fond of Shepherd. I understand that today he's a persona non grata.
Aside from my friendships with FV personalities, I served on the advisory committee at Synod Schererville which recommended the appointment of this study committee. The advisory committee was tasked with making recommendations to synod regarding an overture from Classis Michigan to adopt the RCUS report on Justification. That sentiment was quickly discarded. The URCNA is not the RCUS, it was said, and Norman Shepherd, the subject of the RCUS report, was a minister in the CRCNA and not the URCNA.
On the other hand, the members of the advisory committee thought something should be done. FV theology was threatening the URCNA church. No one could cite an instance in the URCNA. No one could name a name. But sometimes a war is just even when you can't find Weapons of Mass Destruction.
So the advisory committee recommended two things (a) adopt nine points dealing with covenant theology (which, though unhelpful and at points confusing, are generally innocuous). The original nine points had been penned by Scott Clark, an instructor at Westminster Seminary in California, and passed to a delegate to take to this advisory committee meeting. They were tweaked (significantly in places) and then submitted to synod for adoption. Not exactly pristine Reformed church polity, but it happened; (b) appoint a study committee to investigate the FV position on justification in particular. Though this wasn't what any church or classis had requested, this is what we did.
On a personal note, I and others argued from the floor of synod for the adoption of the nine points (the lesser of two evils) in lieu of the appointment of this committee. It didn't happen. The nine points were adopted and the study committee was appointed. Van Dellen and Monsma rolled in their graves.
Moreover, I served as a minister in the URCNA for some 12 years. In that time period I developed lasting friendships with both parishioners in the churches I served and colleagues throughout the federation. I am concerned about the direction of the URCNA, should it adopt this report and its recommendations.
Today I'm a pastor in the Canadian Reformed Churches which has close ecumenical ties with the URCNA, so much so that there's a merger being planned. Folk in the Canadian Reformed Churches are rightly very sensitive to what's sometimes called "extra-confessional binding," the extra-confessional theological statements of synods which demand allegiance. Moreover, they are generally fond of the theologies of Schilder and Holwerda which, it seems, are now under attack in the URCNA. For some it brings back sad memories of an event they call 44.
I yearn for closer relations between Can Ref and URCNA. These relations are now in jeopardy. I want to do what I can to encourage the uniting of what is being fractured.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)