Post Tenebras Lux

The End of an Era?

2008-07-31T02:10:00.005-05:00

Well, folks, it has been a fun ride. Not much of a ride for the last year or so, but so it goes.

I'm not quitting the Internet or blogging. Rather, I am moving the operation over to a new site. Related to that, here's some news for anyone who doesn't know. My dissertation is almost done, I am working to get my CDL so I can make a little money for a change, and I am a pastor. I will be blogging over on the church's website, at the following link:

Berea Reformed Evangelical Church

Please feel free to come see me over there. I plan to post more regularly. This blog and all its contents is to remain as a testimony for all who should wander by in the distant future.

Well, that's all then I guess.

Economists don't understand economics

2007-10-24T14:13:00.000-05:00

Hoo boy. Did you know that the fires in Southern California are actually good for the economy? Oh, you didn't? Yeah, that's because they're not.

From the article:

"In the odd nature of economic accounting, this will probably be a stimulus," said Alan Gin, a University of San Diego economist. "There will be a huge amount of rebuilding in the next couple of years, financed by insurance payments.

That's unbelievable from a professor of economics. HT to Lew Rockwell, whose e-mail correspondent suggests that people need to be taught Bastiat's lesson of the broken window. Indeed, and in the spirit of offering people a choice let me recommend that people just read Harry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. That will teach you Bastiat's insight quite nicely.

The insight, in short, is as follows. Wars and disasters do not "boost" the economy. How could destruction ever be an economic boon, on the net? All the economic 'activity' that is spent fixing the destruction uses resources that would have been used on other things if the destruction hadn't happened. If the destruction hadn't happened, then you would have had all the original property still in tact, and other things being done with the money. If the destruction happens, then all that money goes to replace the lost property, to getting us back to "square one", as it were.

Hey! They look a lot like us!

2007-10-23T15:20:00.000-05:00

Do you really want to bomb this country? Why?

This is not a rhetorical question. I'd love to hear someone's answer.

And, yes, Cat Stevens is a hypocrite. So re-make the slide show using your own preferred song. Keep your eye on the ball, though.

Should the hits keep on coming?

2007-10-23T13:49:00.000-05:00

"Should we go into Iran, or should we already be there?"

That's your headline? Normally even Fox News is not that brazen..."fair and balanced," and all that. They usually leave themselves a little bit of wiggle room to perry accusations that they are blatantly biased. But this sort of thing leaves no doubt.

And, yes, all the other media sources are biased, too. All human beings are biased. That's not the point.

What Anti-War Conservatism Looks Like

2007-10-05T19:47:00.000-05:00

This is an excellent article by Pat Buchanan regarding Ahmadenijad. It also provides a good background, I think, to the sort of 'non-interventionist' foreign policy that is currently being advocated by Ron Paul. If any pro-Iraq-war conservatives have heard Paul's comments in the debates and elsewhere and would like to get a little more perspective on where he's coming from, Buchanan's article is a great place to start.

Of course, Sean Hannity says that Pat Buchanan is not a conservative, simply because he opposes the war in Iraq (!!), so I suppose there's no convincing some people about what is acceptable conservatism and what isn't.

Of course of course, the best place to start if you want to understand Ron Paul is Ron Paul's own writings. He's clear enough in his own right. But I like providing folks with options.

The Warfare State and the Welfare State are friends

2007-10-04T13:17:00.001-05:00

The Wall Street Journal's business blog asked Ron Paul supporters to comment on Paul's successful 'use' of the internet, and what particularly about that use has drawn them in. There are a LOT of intelligent comments in that thread, which goes to show that Paul's supporters are not the belligerent mob they are often made out to be. Ask an honest question about why they support Dr. No, and they will tell you quite politely. Tell lies about him or his message, and they will protest. The tone of these discussions is usually set by the non-Paul supporters, not the other way around.

But anyway, one commenter in particular jumped out at me with his explanation of Paul's campaign and how Paul is able to draw such a diverse range of supporters. I don't know who "Robert" from NW Ohio is, but I salute him for his concise and incisive explanation.

"First and foremost, you must know that it’s NOT Ron Paul that most of us follow, but what he stands for. For many of us that means different things. For some it’s the war, for others its economic issues. We have so many seemingly diametrically opposed view points on the campaign, it almost defies logic. But go under the surface and the commonality becomes apparent it’s INDIVIDUALITY and freedom. Ron Paul doesn’t want to DO things for us, he wants to get government out of our way and let us DO for ourselves. The reason so many Democrats are on-board is because people are finally making the connection between the Welfare state and the Warfare state. The two are forever linked. Pro-Interventionist Republicans are learning you can’t have economic freedom at home, when you’re spending trillions abroad. And Pro-Statist Liberals are learning you can’t force people to submit to your good intentions at home anymore than you can force Democracy abroad. People are waking up to the fact that America CAN’T do it all. It’s time for Americans to come together and fix what’s wrong at home, so that we can again be a Beacon of freedom for the oppressed of this world."

Robert

Folks, that is the message that makes it possible for Ron Paul to actually win this thing. He outflanks the typical candidates from both parties, all at the same time. And it can be summed up very succintly: liberty. It's not a hard message to communicate quickly, but it also represents a much deeper political philosophy.

A Reading Passage to help you study for standardized tests

2007-09-09T19:07:00.001-05:00

Getting back to some of that stuff from my "corner" of the theological world, I thought I would post this reading passage that I came across when I was teaching test prep for Kaplan. I teach part-time for them, for those of you who didn't know that, and I am qualified to teach prep courses for the SAT, GRE, GMAT, and LSAT. Anyway, in case any anti-FVers are planning on getting a graduate degree sometime in the near future, I thought I'd give them a head start on practicing their critical reading skills, which of course is one of the most important skills on any of the standardized tests mentioned in the previous sentence.

(Kaplan pulls all of their practice passages directly from actual exams. In this case I have taken a passage that I think COULD be on an actual exam, but as far as I know never has been.)

--------------------------------

Questions 1-5 relate to the following passage.

Salvation is relational. It is found only in covenant union with Christ. As we abide in Him, all that is true of Him is true of us. It has been the common practice in Reformed circles to use the term “elect” to refer only to those who are predestined to eternal salvation. Since God has ordained all things “whatsoever comes to pass” (Eph. 1:11), He has certainly predestined the number of all who will be saved at the last day. This number is fixed and settled, not one of these will be lost. The Lord will accomplish all His holy will. But the term “elect” (or “chosen”) as it is used in the Scriptures most often refers to those in covenant union with Christ who is the Elect One.

In the Old Testament, Israel is called God’s elect or chosen people (Deut. 7:6; Ps. 135:4; Isa. 45:4). Consequently, Paul and the other apostles refer to the members of the Church, the “new Israel,” as the “elect” as well (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 1:1–2; 2:9; 5:13; 2 John 1, 13).

Election was not something hidden or unknown to the apostles or the prophets but something that could be rightly attributed to all who were in covenant. Paul even addresses the Ephesians in startling language (Eph. 1:3–5), saying that they were chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world.” We have to remind ourselves that he was not giving a theological lecture but stating what was objectively true of all those in the church in Ephesus. Being united to the Elect One, all who are baptized may be truthfully addressed as the “elect of God.” Thus, if you were to ask Paul, “Do you know who the elect are?” he might have replied, “Of course! The elect are all who are in Christ!”

This is not to say that election is only “general” or “corporate” and not individual. God’s promise to Israel was both to the nation as a whole and to the particular individuals who made up the nation. Each Israelite was grafted by God into the body of His people as an act of His sovereign, electing love. Though the promises were given to the nation of Israel, every individual Israelite could say, “This belongs to me.”

Think of the promise Paul relates to the members of the church at Rome (Rom. 8:28–34). Throughout this passage, Paul refers to the “elect,” those whom God “foreknew” and “predestined,” and then asks these questions: “What shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? Christ died, rose again and makes intercession for us, who can separate us from the love of God?” Clearly, Paul is not stating promises that are true only for some unknown group called the “elect.” Nor is he speaking only to a portion of the congregation whom he judges to be “regenerate.” Rather, he is applying these promises to all the members of the Church who have been baptized and united to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6). Yet, in spite of these clear affirmations of their elect status, Paul does not hesitate to warn them against the possibility of apostasy (Rom. 11:9–22).

------------------------------

1. The author's primary purpose in this passage is to:

(A) refute a particular understanding of a theological concept
(B) elucidate all possible meanings of a theological concept
(C) advocate an inerrantist interpretation of the Bible
(D) provide support for a particular understanding of a theological concept
(E) oppose two understandings of a theological concept against one another

2. The function of "consequently" in line 13 is to:

(A) transition into a suggested consequence of denying the traditional Reformed doctrine of election
(B) transition into a suggested consequence of denying the existence of God
(C) transition into a suggested consequence of a word's usage in the Old Testament
(D) transition into a suggested consequence of believing the traditional Reformed doctrine of election
(E) transition into a suggested consequence of the Old Testament having been written

3. The function of the fifth paragraph is to:

(A) Refute the notion that Paul believed in an unknown group called the "elect."
(B) Provide support of an earlier claim that contradicts an established doctrine
(C) Provide support of an earlier claim that is neglected by an established doctrine
(D) Repudiate the doctrine of apostasy
(E) Provide support for an established doctrine

4. Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the author's argument?

(A) Examination in the original languages of many of the texts the author cites reveals that "elect" or "chosen" are used in those passages to refer to people who are predestined to eternal salvation
(B) Not all theologians believe that some people are predestined to eternal salvation
(C) The author has no formal theological training
(D) Much of the Bible was written by nomads.
(E) The term "salvation" has historically been used by Reformed theologians to refer to things other than everlasting life in Heaven.

5. It can be reasonably inferred from the passage that the author would agree with each of the following EXCEPT:

(A) the traditional Reformed doctrine of election is problematic
(B) warning a person against apostasizing implies that that person is capable of apostasizing
(C) the Bible teaches that it is possible to be blessed by God and then fall away from those blessings
(D) the Bible sometimes uses the same word in more than one way
(E) individuals can benefit from a corporate reality

--------------------------------

Me again. Go ahead and fill in your answers. No peeking! Send them to me at xonhostetter@gmail.com

Let's see, what have we missed?

2007-09-09T18:36:00.001-05:00

Yeah, I've been away a while. I am super busy and I don't really promise to do any blogging for a while at least. But I just wanted to give a quick update on what has happened since April.

I am a father!

My denomination has proclaimed me to hold to aberrant theology, sort of.

We've moved to Kentucky.

I am teaching part-time and trying to be a salesman full-time.

I have successfully defended my prospectus, which means I am officially "ABD" (All But Dissertation).

I still hate the way newspaper columnists write in short, stoccato paragraphs. Like these.

Whatever time I am able to put into it is going to be put into helping Ron Paul become president. Despite my cynicism about politics ("Why vote, it only encourages them," etc.), those of you who know me that I've been a fan of Dr. Paul for years now and the fact that he is actually making something of a splash in this earliest phase of the campaign for the Republican nomination means that I cannot help but feel inspired to care about politics. At least for this go around.

I still pull for Georgia with all my heart.

Good night, and good luck.

The anti-FV challenge: Part VII

2007-04-24T12:14:00.000-05:00

David Gadbois returns to DOR1

Here is an argument from David Gadbois made in the same conversation thread in which Lane and I first started discussing DOR1. David thought I dismissed it as a teaching of the Confession too readily.

Basic Dossier

Alleged Contradiction Between: Steve Wilkins / Westminster Confession

Source: David Gadbois, comments at Greenbaggins

Contradicted Proposition: DOR1: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight. (contra/pro)

Wilkins source material:

Answers to the Louisiana Presbytery (Already established, more or less, that Wilkins does deny DOR1.)

Confessional source material:

"God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification." (WCF XI.5)

"To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit." (WCF VIII.8)

----------------------------------------------

Argument Verbatim

"[DOR1] is a necessary consequence of WCF 11.5:

“God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification”

It leaves no wiggle room, that you imagine, for temporary justification.

Of course, this teaching is based on the unbreakability of the Golden Chain/ordo salutis in Romans 8, which Wilkins shoots himself in the foot with by quoting it.

And on what legal basis could the declaration of righteousness be revoked? This is, AT BEST, Lutheranism. It is not Reformed. If one is imputed the righteousness of Christ, which that declaration is based on, then it would be double jeopardy for judgment to come upon the sinner.

So this leads to a breakdown in our doctrine of the work of Christ as well:

"To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit"

----------------------------------

Evaluation

As was true two posts ago in this series, the dispute over DOR1 is not whether Wilkins denies it (it seems clear from his Answers to the Louisiana Presbytery that he doe), but whether the Westminster Standards affirm it. For them to "affirm" it, they must either teach it directly or it must be derivable from something that they teach directly. To refresh our memories, DOR1 is as follows:

DOR1: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight

So, my claim is that, while Wilkins denies DOR1, the Confession doesn't affirm it.

In Part V, we looked at an attempt by Lane Keister to show that the Confession affirms DOR1. We found that argument to be insufficient. In the present argument, David G. offers another argument that the Confession affirms DOR1, and he points us to two places in the Confession, chapters 11.5 and 8.8. WCF 11.5 tells us that God preserves those He justifies to the end. There is no such thing, in other words, as a justified person who ends up unjustified at a later time. One justified, always justified. And 8.8 tells us more or less the same thing but from the perspective of Christ's work specifically: Christ certainly and effectually applies the redemption He purchased to all those for whom He purchased it. There is no such thing as a person for whom Christ purchased redemption but who ends up not receiving that redemption.

I agree that the Confession teaches both of these things, but so does Wilkins when all the theological "jargon" is understood properly. Once again, we have to interpret words like "justification" in their proper context, both for the Confession and for Wilkins. When the Confession's "usage definition" of this word is remembered, these statements do not add up to an affirmation of DOR1. Let's look more closely (and parallel reasoning, more or less, will apply to the passage from WCF 8.8).

First, here's an almost word-for-word gloss on the passage from WCF11.5 would look like this: "God continues to forgive the sins of those that are justified, and those that are justified can never fall from the state of justification."

Now we plug in the “usage definitions” for “justified” and its homomorphs. Using the same definition (or something very close) which we've been borrowing from WLC 70 (see Part V), we get something like this:

C1: God continues to forgive the sins of those that receive a declaration of pardon at some point during their earthly life that includes forgiveness for all sins they will ever commit, and those who receive this declaration can never fall from the state of being pardoned by God for all the sins they will ever commit.

This is an essential part of the Confession's notion of "justification;" a complete/permanent forgiveness for all sins a person every commits. I am only reading in what the Confession itself says that "justification" is.

As things stand, we still need another proposition to really capture the Confession's meaning in WCF11.5. This is because C1 doesn’t actually tell us WHO it is that receives this declaration of pardon from God which includes forgiveness for all their sins. But obviously we know from our understanding of Reformed theology in general that this is only those who have been predestined by God to live eternally with Him in glory. We'll cut David and ourselves some slack and not worry about tracking this down in the Confession--it's Reformed Theology 101. So let’s add this in a separate proposition:

C2: All and only those predestined by God to live eternally with Him in glory receive the declaration of pardon discussed in C1.

Okay, so from WCF11.5 (more or less) we get C1 and C2. But what David has claimed is that 11.5 teaches DOR1. Look again at DOR1:

DOR1: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight.

Now, do C1 and C2 together allow us to derive DOR1? The answer pretty clearly looks to be "No." C1 and C2 are not even predicating of the same subject as DOR1, so it is hard to imagine how a proof using only C1 and C2 as premises could possibly derive DOR1.

In other words, contrary to David's assertion, there looks to be all kinds of “wiggle room” here regarding some sort of declaration of pardon to some non-elect people because C1 and C2 can’t be used to derive anything at all about non-elect people. They are predicating something to elect people, and to the “justification” that these receive. You can’t derive a predication of non-elect people from two statements that only predicate of elect people.

The "all and only" in C2 does not build a successful bridge to DOR1, because the thing that is possessed by "all and only the elect" in C2 is "the pardon described in C1." But the pardon described in C1 is a particular kind of pardon, a pardon for ALL sins a person will ever commit.

DOR1 is a more universal claim, though; it is not making a claim about this particular kind of pardon only but about ANY and ALL types of pardon. This cannot be justified on the basis of C1 and C2 alone.

The attempted inference that David is making goes from "all and only the elect receive pardon-of-such-and-such-a-type" to "all and only the elect receive pardon-of-any-type." That's an inference that cannot be made without some further information from the Standards, which David does not provide in his argument. There is just no way to get from these two to DOR1 without help, but no help is offered. [Note: Edit made in light of helpful comments. xrh]

Perhaps WCF 3.6 and WLC 68 will be re-enlisted to try to bridge the inferential gap. As we saw in Part V, WCF 3.6 tells us that the elect, and the elect only, are "justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation." And WLC 68 tells us that the non-elect "do never truly come to Jesus Christ."

But we already dealt with WCF 3.6 directly in Part V, and it doesn't bridge the gap succesfully. It tells us that only the elect are "justified," but we've seen from WLC 70 that "justification" in the Confession refers to a complete/permanent forgiveness for all sins a person ever commits. No FV person (Wilkins included) postulates that a non-elect person has this kind of complete/permanent forgiveness, and therefore no FV person would disagree with the Confession's claim here that only the elect are "justified" in the way that includes this kind of complete/permanent forgiveness.

But the non-elect covenenat member might still come to Christ in a "less true" way, in a way that still brings with it real but temporary blessings. Even a termporary "justification" and "forgiveness of sins." Why not? WLC 68 tells us that the non-elect do never "truly" come to Christ Jesus, but it alos tells us that they DO "receive common operations of the Spirit." Saying that the non-elect do not ever "truly" come to Christ, therefore, cannot preculde them from receiving any benefits at all in connection with Christ, because the Spirit that operates upon them is the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit whom Christ sent into the world after He had departed, the third Person of the Trinity that does all things in mutual inter-submission to the other two Persons. If NECMs receive operations of the Spirit, then NECMs receive SOMETHING from Christ. WLC 68 precludes them from ever coming to Christ in the "fuller" way that accompanies everlasting and irrevocable salvation, but FV thinkers (like Wilkins) do not claim that they come in this way, so there is no contradiction here.

I think this is enough to show, then, that David Gadbois's argument from WCF 11.5 and WCF 8.8 is also insufficient to show that the Westminster Standards teach DOR1. And, since it has not been shown that they teach it, then it also has not been shown that Wilkins is in contradiction with the Standards when he denies it.

The anti-FV challenge: Part VI

2007-04-24T12:13:00.001-05:00

Another from Lane Keister

Basic Dossier

Alleged Contradiction Between: Steve Wilkins / Westminster Confession

Source: Lane Keister, comments at Greenbaggins

Contradicted Proposition: F1: There is only one kind of forgiveness from the wrath of God as Judge. (contra/pro)

Wilkins source material:

Answers to the Louisiana Presbytery (Already established, more or less, that Wilkins does deny F1, but this would be the place to look to find where he does so.)

Confessional source material:

"Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it." (WCF XV.3)

"From this original corruption [i.e., Origianl Sin, xrh], whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions." (WCF VI.4)

----------------------------------------------

Argument Verbatim

"My point here is that the WS exclude any kind of temporary true faith, or temporary true union. I think the WS would view those categories as contradictions in terms. A temporary faith is not a true faith, by definition. A temporary union is not a true union, by definition. Wilkins wants to say that it is a true faith, a true union, only they are temporary. I simply don’t see the WS allowing for that category.

"...The WS define sin as being two-fold: original sin and actual sin. This distinction is clear in chapter 6 of the WCF. Furthermore, 6.4 defines actual sins as having their source in the original sin, or original corruption. It is a categorical statement: “From this original corruption…do proceed all actual transgressions.” To put it negatively, there is no sin that does not proceed from original corruption. 6.6 further states that both original and actual sins are transgressions that bring guilt upon the sinner, making him subject to eternal death. Furthermore, 6.5 says that the original corruption is pardoned in those that are regenerated. Plainly, there can be no pardon of original corruption without regeneration. Regeneration, by definition, reverses original corruption (though not completely freeing us from it, as 6.5 indicates). To be more specific, regeneration means a new heart. Through Christ, those who are regenerated have their original corruption pardoned and mortified (6.5). That is what I mean by “reversal.” I am on safe ground, therefore, in saying that only the regenerate have their original corruption pardoned and mortified. The categories of regenerated and original-corruption-pardoned-and-mortified are the same in 6.5.

"I would then argue that actual sin cannot be forgiven unless original corruption is also forgiven. If one needs to put it temporally, original sin is forgiven first, then actual sins. I actually believe that the forgiveness is simultaneous, but that’s another debate. The reason I argue this is Romans 5. The foundational issue for sin in Romans 5 is the sin of Adam imputed to us. That is original sin. In the architectonic importance of that passage, Christ’s work reverses original sin. Verse 19 “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” This interpretation is confirmed by the following context, where our being dead to sin means that we should not live in actual sins any longer. The logic goes from original to actual.

"So, in propositional form, it would look like this: 1. There is no pardon of actual sins without pardon of original sin. 2. There is no pardon of original sin without regeneration. 3. Only the elect are regenerated. Therefore. 4. Only the elect have pardon. 5. No non-elect person can have any kind of pardon, since pardon involves pardon of original sin, which can only happen if regeneration is present."

[Clarification of the argument in a comment]: "All actual sin has its origin in original sin. Therefore, the actual sin cannot be forgiven without the original sin also being forgiven. Otherwise, the branch (actual sin) has been forgiven without the root (original sin) being dealt with at all. This is impossible.."

------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation

The real issue is with the first sentence in the third paragraph of the Verbatim: "I would then argue that actual sin cannot be forgiven unless original corruption is also forgiven…." This doesn't appear to have been established, and indeed it strikes me as false.

Consider an analogy from the human realm and think of a father who knows he has a wicked son. His son has a deep problem with his nature—he is naturally disposed to lie, cheat, abuse, and exploit his way through life. Now say that this son commits a particular sin against his father—he lies to him, let’s say, and gets caught red-handed. The son feels genuinely guilty about this (this is just an analogy), and asks for his father's forgiveness. Can’t the father forgive his son for telling the lie without also forgiving him for his entire rotten disposition that led to the lie? “Son, I forgive you and will never mention this lie again, but you still have to get help. You have much deeper problems than that one lie. That one act was just a symptom. Please, get help and take care of the disease. Become a better person all around—don’t just feel bad about lying to me just now.”

It seems that we could call this “forgiveness” of an actual sin, even though the “root” of his sin--the son's corrupt nature out of which the actual sin flowed--hasn’t been forgiven. Now, if this is possible for humans to do, then surely it’s possible for God, right?

So, actual sin all follows out of original sin, check. And we might even agree that only the regenerate have their original sin pardoned, in line with Lane's interpretation of WCF 6.5-6. Double check. But where is he getting the idea that the only way to be pardoned for actual sin is to be pardoned for original sin?

Let me rephrase the argument: (1)All actual sin has its origin in original sin. (2) Therefore, the actual sin cannot be forgiven without the original sin also being forgiven. Otherwise, (3) the branch (actual sin) has been forgiven without the root (original sin) being dealt with at all. (4) This [i.e., (3)] is impossible.

(4) really just means “not (3).” So we can construct the argument like this:

P1: (1).
P2: If not (2), then (3).
C1/P3: Not (3). (From P1 somehow?)
C2/P4: Therefore, not not (2) (P2, P3, Modus Tollens)
C3: Therefore, (2). (P4, Double negation)

P2 - C3 clearly form a valid argument. The question is whether it is sound. The questionable part is the third premise (also the first intermediate conclusion), that it is impossible to have the “branch” forgiven without the “root” also being forgiven. It appears that P1 is somehow supposed to make this impossible (which is why Lane has the “Therefore” in (2) immediately following (1). Somehow (1) is doing the main argumentative heavy lifting to give us (2).)

The question is “How does P1 support P3?” Why should we believe P3 is true, based on P1? How do we get from “All actual sin has its origin in original sin” to “it is impossible for actual sin to be forgiven without original sin being dealt with at all?”

Obviously, if the “root” (original sin) hasn’t been “dealt with at all”, then a person is still in big trouble. But why does this preclude him from being forgiven for some particular sin he commits? This forgiveness won’t solve all his problems, obviously, but it will at least “clear” him of some particular indiscretion.

So, for now, I say "another one bites the dust." :-) I don’t see a good reason to accept P3. Certainly not based on P1 alone. And without P3, we can’t get the conclusion C3. So at this point I cannot agree that the Confession teaches that there is no forgiveness of any kind that goes to decretally non-elect covenant members. Which means that I also cannot agree that Wilkins is contradicting the Confession when he teaches that there is such a forgiveness for these NECMs.

Even "all" has a context

2007-04-24T10:09:00.000-05:00

In the debate over "Federal Vision" theology, there is a fairly short list of passages from the writings of FV thinkers which critics return to time and time again. At the very top of that list, most likely, is a passage from Steve Wilkins' article in the book The Federal Vision (2004).

In the course of going through all the blessings that Wilkins thinks the Scriptures claim for all baptized people that are covenantally united to Christ in this way, he makes a statement (a couple of times) which has driven FV critics up the wall. He says that this covenantal union with Christ possessed by all baptized people brings with it "all the spiritual blessings in Christ."

I've talked before about what I think this really means, and why it does not warrant the amount of negative attention that anti-FVers have heaped upon it, but I want to do this one more time here. (The basic structure of what I say here is also found in one of the "expansions" of the previous post.)

So, Wilkins says that "all spiritual blessings" belong to those who are united to Christ by baptism. From this FVers often reason something like this: final salvation (or "perseverance" is often the blessing focused on) is a spiritual blessing, so if the baptized have all spiritual blessings then they must have final/complete salvation (or perseverance), too. So when Wilkins says "all blessings" a clear entailment of this is that all baptized people are saved forever. Even though Wilkins never explicitly mentions everlasting salvation in these passages from his article, his statements about "all spiritual blessings" clearly have implications for everlasting salvation, no matter what he might claim to believe to the contrary.

So goes the anti-FV argument against Wilkins' statement in the article from the FV book (and he also says similar things in the very similar article in the Knox Colloquium book). But I don't think this is quite right. "All" can be qualified in at least two ways, and either of them is sufficient to make a more favorable reading of Wilkins' words possible.

This point about what readings are possible is actually very important, because the law of charity says that we should always read others in the best possible light. Futhermore, Wilkins himself explicitly denies that all baptized people enjoy final/everlasting salvation (or perseverance). Since Wilkins explicitly denies believing this, his opponents have to claim that he is simply inconsistent on this point; his writings and teachings are self-contradictory. This is certainly possible--people do contradict themselves in this world we live in. But such self-contradiction must be demonstrated. If Wilkins' words have more than one possible meaning, and on some readings he is consistent while on others he is self-contradictory, then charity requires us to give his words one of the readings that makes him self-consistent. This is fundamental to any scholarship and polemical exchange worthy of the name Christian, and it is a terrible failure indeed (academically, and quite possibly ethically) to fail to do this.

So, given what Wilkins himself says he believes--that not all baptized people enjoy everlasting salvation--what do we say about the arguments of his opponents that his other assertion (in the articles from the FV book and the Knox Colloquium) that all baptized people receive "all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus" contradicts this? This is where the two likely qualifications of the word "all" come in.

First, "all" can be qualified by the fact that baptized people only enjoy benefits in time "as they go" through life. The "salvation" spoken of in the Confession is a salvation that involves a person being pardoned for ALL their sins, being vindicated at the last day, living with God forever in glory, persevering with faith until the end, etc. But none of these things that can actually happen, in the strictest sense, until we are glorified with Christ at the eschaton. At that moment and forever thereafter, we will be forgiven for every single sin we will ever commit (we are not forgiven for all of them right now, even if we are elect and regenerate; because we haven't committed them all yet. While God is "outside of time," and certainly knows about our future sins, it doesn't seem right to speak of Him "forgiving" those sins now, before we've even committed to them. What is there, really, to forgive?) Likewise, no person, whether elect or not, can possibly "possess" perseverance in the here and now. The whole point of perseverance is that you are in a state of having persevered; you can't "possess" this until you actually have done the persevering. No living Christian can say that they have already done this. So these time-bound blessings of salvation that don't happen until the eschaton are not "blessings" that we CAN enjoy now in the present.

So as not to be misunderstood, let me be clear here; I am not saying that this is the ONLY appropriate way to think about these blessings. I think it is acceptable, for instance, to also think of sins as "pardoned" in advance, in some sense, but at the very least this time-bound idea of pardon ALSO makes perfect sense (and has precedent in the Reformed tradition, too). Furthermore, I'm not saying that we cannot enjoy the promise or the anticipation of these blessings in the here and now. God guarantees that His elect will persevere to the end, and the elect can certainly experience the full riches of God's grace in some sense in the here and now before their perseverance and full glorification has actually taken place. But, true as this is, it still stretches the meaning of everyday speech to say that the elect therefore "possess" their full salvation right now. They don't, not properly speaking anyway.

This means that, if "salvation" refers to the Westminster Standards' notion of a complete pardon for all sins that are ever committed by a person, and to a relationship with Christ which is everlasting (persevering) by definition, then no "time-bound" person (whether elect or non-elect) can "possess" that kind of salvation right now, at least not in the fullest sense. It simply is not a "spiritual blessing" that it is possible to have in the present, for anyone who is currently living on planet Earth. And when Wilkins says that the baptized have "all spiritual blessings" right now in Christ, it is perfectly reasonable to understand him to be referring only to those spiritual blessings which it is possible to possess in the present.

The second qualification of "all" is that we should consider the possibility that two people can possess the same blessing, but then "experience" it or "process" it or "receive" it in drastically different ways. So, say two people both eat a big turkey meal at Thanksgiving, and then one of them watches football all afternoon while the other falls asleep on the couch. But both received "all culinary blessings" of the Thanksgiving meal, despite the different results of thier processing it.

Now, perhaps anti-FVers want to say that the WAY we receive a blessing is ITSELF a gift of God, a blessing (at least for those who make a positive reception). I agree with this, and so does Wilkins I am sure. As Calvinists, we believe that ALL things are from God, including the way we respond to His gifts. But despite this being true, we don't have to speak this way all the time--in fact it would be confusing if we always described gifts in this way. We can talk about two kids getting the same gift for Christmas, and the crazy Calvinist uncle is just being annoying if he says "No, folks, technically they did NOT receive the same gift, because little Johnny was grateful for his but little Jane was not. So Johnny received an extra gift that Jane did not." This is true, but does not always need to be said. Likewise, then, with Wilkins' claim that all baptized people receive "all spiritual blessings" through their union with Christ: this just means that there is some "objective" sense in which these blessings are bestowed on all baptized people, but it does not entail that they all receive these blessings in precisely the same way. If we wish to tie this in with the previous point, we could say that the "salvation" or perseverance spoken of in the Confession are part of the "subjective" experiences of receiving the objective blessings of union with Christ. In the ultimate sense, of course, these subjective receptions are themselves "objective" gifts of God, too, becuase as Calvinists we believe that everything that comes to pass happens by God's hand. But, again, there is no reason to read this into Wilkins' particular statement here.

We Calvinists should be used to recognizing the context of "all" by now. In my most humble opinion, therefore, the fuss many critics of FV theology have made over Wilkins' use of the word in this article is much ado about little.

The anti-FV challenge: Part V

2007-04-23T12:00:00.000-05:00

(If you like, you can read the four-part introduction to this series of posts:
Part I Part II Part III Part IV)

Lane Keister has recently called FV proponents to "repent" of their views. Of course, he does this on the twin (acknowledged) assumptions, that their views do indeed constitute serious error and that this has been sufficiently demonstrated in the discussion between them and their critics. In the post Lane himself refers to a lengthy series of posts he has written as evidence for his claims that FV theology is unacceptably problematic. Lane seems to think that, at least as far as the substance of the two sides is concerned, the debate is pretty much over and the critics of FV have won the day. I don't begrudge Lane his right to think this, and he certainly has devoted an impressive amount of time and number of posts to advancing criticisms of FV theology (as he understands it) on his blog over the past several months. But I (unsurprisingly) nonetheless continue to disagree with him. I do not believe that the criticisms he has offered are as successful as he thinks they are, and I would extend that critical assesment to the criticisms of other "well-known" opponents of FV (that I have read) as well.

And so the first arguments I'm going to examine as candidates for the "anti-FV challenge" will come from Lane. The reason for this is that Lane and I have had several somewhat fruitful dialogues on his blog already. Indeed, this is a big part of why I am so struck by Lane's comments to the effect that he has already successfully criticized FV on his blog: because I played something of a role in the discussions attached to several of those posts of his, and I continue to think that most of his arguments fall short (though Lane himself seems an affable and intelligent fellow). It seems it might be helpful, therefore, if I go through some of those arguments here so folks can get a feel for where I and presumably other FV-sympathetic people are coming from on these issues. I hope those earlier discussions on Lane's blog already provided some opporunity for people to gain that feel, but here I am able to press the gas pedal in a way that I couldn't do there.

Again, though, this isn't about Lane per se. I plan to look at the arguments of other critics of FV theology as well. All as the series continues! Let's look at the first argument from Lane's blog, then, within the parameters of our template.

Basic Dossier

Alleged Contradiction Between: Steve Wilkins / Westminster Confession

Source: Lane Keister, comments at Greenbaggins (This jumps you into the heart of the discussion, more or less. For fuller context, you can start by reading my comment #22 and Lane's #24 in that same thread. For even more context, you can read as many of the previous comments and posts on Lane's blog as you want!)

Contradicted Proposition: DOR1: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight (contra/pro)

Wilkins source material:

various quotes from pp. 54-61 of The Federal Vision*

Confessional source material:

"Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." (WCF III.6, emphasis added)

"All the elect, and they only, are effectually called: although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ." (WLC 68)

"Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone." (WLC 70)

----------------------------------------------

Argument Verbatim

Why does WCF 3.6 *not* teach [DOR1]? We would certainly have to say that the WS never positively teach a temporary justification. The question, however, as you have pointed out, is whether the WS *eliminate* temporary justification from consideration. It seems to me that there are many passages in the WS that limit justification and other saving benefits only to the elect. WS 3.6 and LC 68 are only the most obvious examples.

It might be helpful here to look at the actual definition of justification in LC 70. [quotes WLC 70]. As I see it, there are some implications of this definition that are relevant. “Perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ” implies that the deal is done completely. If Jesus’ full obedience and satisfaction is imputed to a person, but only temporarily, then is Jesus’ obedience really all that perfect and is His satisfaction all that full? The only way that I see to get out of this is to posit not just a difference in the diachronic definition of justification which you have mentioned, but actually to say that there is a difference in the synchronic nature of the two justifications. So then, you have two justifications: one temporary and incomplete, the other eternal and complete. Quite frankly, I don’t see Scripture justifying this, nor the WS. Romans says in 8:1 that there is now therefore *no* condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (surely we would have to say that he is talking about those who have been justified), and that *all* those who are justified are also glorified. There doesn’t seem to be any slippage among those categories in the golden chain. Further, I don’t see anywhere in Wilkins where the difference between the two justifications is anything other than merely diachronic.

------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation

* First, a note regarding the Wilkins material. Technically, the passage Lane uses in this argument is not right. I wasn't clear enough in my own thinking and reflection on Wilkins' writings when we had the discussion originally, so I didn't catch it at the time, either. But, really, Lane should be drawing from Wilkins' answers to the Louisiana Presbytery in order to establish that Wilkins denies DOR1, not these passages from the "Federal Vision" book. In any case, though, we can let this slide now that it has been made where Wilkins' denial of DOR1 should really be derived from.

(Expand to read an explanation of why the article in the FV book which Lane cites does not establish that Wilkins believes DOR1.)

Wilkins never says anything explicitly about "justificaton" in the passages from pp. 54-61 which Lane quotes. Lane's own argument recognizes this, but Lane attempts to infer a denial of DOR1 from these quotes. Here's the actual argument that Lane makes for this inference, found in comment #24 of the same thread:

So the train of thought goes like this: baptism unites us to Christ, taking us into covenant communion with the Triune God. That union with Christ gives us all spiritual blessing in Christ, including justification.

So, Wilkins says that "all spiritual blessings" belong to those who are united to Christ by baptism. From this Lane is reasoning like this: Justification is a spiritual blessing, so if the baptized have all spiritual blessings then they must have justification. So when Wilkins says "all blessings" a clear entailment of this is that all baptized people have justification. Even though Wilkins never explicitly mentions justification in these passages from his article, his statements about "all spiritual blessings" clearly have implications for justification.

But I don't think this is quite right. "All" can be qualified in at least two ways, and either of them is sufficient to make it less than obvious that Wilkins' words entail anything about "justification" and "pardon of sin" whatsoever. First, "all" can be qualified by the fact that baptized people only enjoy benefits in time "as they go" through life. The "justification" spoken of in the Confession is a justification that involves a person being pardoned for ALL their sins. But we are not really pardoned for ALL our sins, in the strictest sense, until we are glorified with Christ at the eschaton. At that moment and forever thereafter, we will have committed and been forgiven for all the sins we are ever going to commit. But right now, during the earthly existence of a anyone who is in Christ, there are all kinds of sins which they are going to commit in the FUTURE. I don't think it really makes sense to say that God forgives these sins BEFORE they happen. Rather, He forgives all our previous sins because we are in Christ, and because we remain in Christ He pardons all subsequent sins when they happen. So as not to be misunderstood, let me be clear here; I am not saying that this is the ONLY appropriate way to think about pardon of future sins. I think it is acceptable to also think of them as "pardoned" in advance, in some sense, but at the very least this time-bound idea of pardon ALSO makes perfect sense (and has precedent in the Reformed tradition, too).

This means that, if "justification" and "pardon" refer to the Westminster Standards' notion of a complete pardon for all sins that are ever committed by a person, then no "time-bound" person (whether elect or non-elect) can have that kind of justification right now. It simply is not a "spiritual blessing" that it is possible to have in the present, for anyone who is currently living on planet Earth. And when Wilkins says that the baptized have "all spiritual blessings" right now in Christ, it is perfectly reasonable to understand him to be referring only to those spiritual blessings which it is possible to possess in the present.

The second qualification of "all" is that we should consider the possibility that two people can possess the same blessing, but then "experience" it or "process" it or "receive" it in drastically different ways. So, say two people both eat a big turkey meal at Thanksgiving, and then one of them watches football all afternoon while the other falls asleep on the couch. But both received "all culinary blessings" of the Thanksgiving meal, despite the different results of thier processing it.

Now, perhaps Lane wants to say that the WAY we receive a blessing is ITSELF a gift of God, a blessing (at least for those who make a positive reception). I agree with Lane here, and I'll bet Wilkins does too. As Calvinists, we believe that ALL things are from God, including the way we respond to His gifts. But despite this being true, we don't have to speak this way all the time--in fact it would be confusing if we always described gifts in this way. We can talk about two kids getting the same gift for Christmas, and the crazy Calvinist uncle is just being annoying if he says "No, folks, technically they did NOT receive the same gift, because little Johnny was grateful for his but little Jane was not. So Johnny received an extra gift that Jane did not." This is true, but does not always need to be said. Likewise, then, with Wilkins' claim that all baptized people receive "all spiritual blessings" through their union with Christ: this just means that there is some "objective" sense in which these blessings are bestowed on all baptized people, but it does not entail that they all receive these blessings in precisely the same way. If we wish to tie this in with the previous point, we could say say that the "justification" and "pardon for sins" spoken of in the Confession are part of the "subjective" experiences of receiving the objective blessings of union with Christ. In the ultimate sense, of course, these subjective receptions are themselves "objective" gifts of God, too, becuase as Calvinists we believe that everything that comes to pass happens by God's hand. But, again, there is no reason to read this into Wilkins' particular statement here.

So, I DO think that Wilkins would deny DOR1. He believes that non-elect covenant members (NECMs) receive some kind of "pardon" from God during their earthly life. It's just that I don't think Lane technically picked the right passage from Wilkins' writings to derive that teaching. Lane should have instead gone to his answers to the Louisiana Presbytery. (But click here to read a complication even with this reading.)

(Although, really, we could possible even challenge this reading of Wilkins' statements to the Louisiana Presbytery. In those comments, Wilkins clearly says that he believs that there is a "justification" received by NECMs which is different from the justification spoken of in the Confession, which goes to ECMs only. But Wilkins does not attempt any precise definition of this NECM "justification" in those answers to LA Presbytery. It is really only a speculation that he would include some kind of "pardon" in his definition of "NECM forgiveness." I think, though, that this is a very likely speculation, and am willing to go forward with it at this point.)

So, an evaluation of Lane's argument for a contradiction between Wilkins and the Confession regarding pardon of sins is going to have to focus on the Confessional material cited. Accepting that Wilkins denies DOR1, does this Confessional material cited by Lane really teach DOR1? I don't think it does. Let's look more closely.

In the first paragraph of the Argument Verbatim, Lane says that "It seems to me that there are many passages in the WS that limit justification and other saving benefits only to the elect. WS 3.6 and LC 68 are only the most obvious examples." But the problem here is identical to what we saw from the CCP Memorial regarding Wilkins' view of election. As things stand right now, Lane is in danger of committing the fallacy of equivocation, because his argument only goes through if "justification" has sufficiently similar meanings in both the Confessional material he cites and in the Wilkins material where Wilkins teaches that there is a kind of "justification" that goes to NECMs. But so far Lane has not established this at all, he has simply asserted that the WS "limit justification...only to the elect." Well, this is true, the WS do say that only the elect are "justified." But my neighbor also says that my dog is not a dog. Is this is a genuine contradiction between us, or are we just using different definitions of "dog"? If the definitions of "dog" are different, then it is the fallacy of equivocation to argue that our positions are in contradiction. And so it goes with Lane's assertion here about the Confession; we must consider the definition of this "justification" which the Confession attributes only to the elect.

Towards the end of considering the definition of "justification," then, let's look at the implications Lane attempts to draw from the Confessional language.

“Perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ” implies that the deal is done completely. If Jesus’ full obedience and satisfaction is imputed to a person, but only temporarily, then is Jesus’ obedience really all that perfect and is His satisfaction all that full?

I suppose not for the NECM, but it is still perfectly perfect and full for the ECM who receives the "fullest share" of that obedience and satisfaction. This would be a good argument against Arminianism, because Arminians claim that the fullest application of Jesus' obedience and satisfaction that it is possible for a person to have is one which still leaves that person expose to the possibility of going to Hell. There is no predestinating decree of God, based entirely on God's grace and not on anything within the creature, that anyone should end up in full glorification. Nobody is predestined in this way, according to Arminians, and therefore Arminianism (at least in its most classical form) does not hold that any person can have Jesus' obedience and satisfaction imputed to them in a way that is guaranteed to last. There simply is no such imputation of Christ's obedience and satisfaction, for an Arminian.

But this is not a good argument against Wilkins at all, because Wilkins affirms (against the Arminians and along with Lane) that there is an imputation of Christ's obedience and satisfaction which is guaranteed to last forever. There are people, in other words, who right now possess such an imputation of Christ's obedience and satisfaction that they are guaranteed to always remain in Christ and to end up living with Him forever in glory, they possess this permanent sort of imputation because they were predestined by God's grace alone to possess it. Wilkins affirms all of this. But he is also asserting a "lesser" imputation of Christ's obedience and satisfaction to all NECMs, an imputation which is not permanent by very definition but which can indeed prove to be only temporary. This does not reduce the perfection or the fullness of Jesus' obedience and satisfaction at all; it simply asserts that that which is experienced fully by some can be experienced less fully by others. God can, in His providence, see fit to "illumine the minds of the wicked so that they perceive His grace," He can "show Himself favorable to them [not] in order to snatch them from death and receive them into His keeping, but [to show] them a compassion only for the present." God can illuminate "some with a present sense of His grace, which afterward vanishes away." (All quotes from Calvin.) Such a temporary enlightening with God's grace in no way diminishes the fullness of that grace which He shows to others who are even more blessed!

But perhaps Lane will say that he is simply pointing out that, for the NECM who only receives Christ's work in a temporary way, that for him it is not a "perfect" and "full" thing. Well, sure--the NECM does not receive the "full" helping of Christ's work, since He does not end up persevering to the end and we know that all those whom God has chosen to give the "full" helping to will persevere to the end. But this observation doesn't do anything to advance Lane's argument against Wilkins. Because the WS, as Lane himself has just insisted we notice, says that the "full" helping of Christ's atoning work goes only to the elect. But that is something with which Wilkins fully agrees! Wilkins is only positing a group of people (the NECM) who gets a "lesser" helping.

(And, yes, I sincerely hate "helping" language to talk about grace, but work with me here.)

Look again at DOR1, it says:

DOR1: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight.

What Lane has just argued, perhaps, is that the Confession says that NECMs do not at any time receive a "full" and "perfect" declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight, but this is not the same thing asserted by DOR1. Let's call this DOR2:

DOR2: NECMs do not at any time receive a "full" and "perfect" declaration of God that htey are righteous in His sight.

I am willing to agree that the Confession teaches DOR2, but Wilkins would not deny DOR2. The thing Lane needs to show is that the Confession teaches DOR1, not DOR2. But the phrase "perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ" in WLC 70 is insufficient for this purpose.

The only other argument I can imagine Lane might be making is that perhaps he wants to say that all experiences of Christ's atoning work must be identically and fully saving, or else the very fact of differentiation in the way God's grace is "divied out" to different people shows it not really to be a perfect and full thing. Christ's work must affect everyone the same way, or else it is not the full and perfect work that we claim it to be. This is another way of reading his argument, but what could possibly be the justification for such a claim? Calvinists already hold that Christ's atoning work benefits the whole world in some sense, even those who never come into covenant with God in any way, shape, or form. Calvinists already hold that God gives grace to the entire world in some sense; every breath a person draws is a gift of God. So it would be truly shocking to hear Lane (or anyone else who professes to be a historic Calvinist) say that. Nah, there's just no way Lane is saying such a thing.

The only way that I see to get out of this is to posit not just a difference in the diachronic definition of justification...but actually to say that there is a difference in the synchronic nature of the two justifications.

Right, which is precisely Wilkins' view as made clean in his answers to the Louisiana Presbytery. There is a "justification" received by the NECM which is different all along (i.e., syncrhonically) from the full "justification" enjoyed by the ECM.

So then, you have two justifications: one temporary and incomplete, the other eternal and complete. Quite frankly, I don’t see Scripture justifying this, nor the WS.

But this is exactly the point of contention! Where, precisely, does the WS teach against this view? Lane has suggested WCF 3.6, understood in light of WLC 68 and 70. But so far his argument for this interpretation has been insufficient.

Romans says in 8:1 that there is now therefore *no* condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (surely we would have to say that he is talking about those who have been justified), and that *all* those who are justified are also glorified. There doesn’t seem to be any slippage among those categories in the golden chain.

Well, the question about Romans 8, on Wilkins' view is simply what kind of "justification" and "glorification" it is talking about. Perhaps it is talking about the Confessional kinds of these terms--i.e. the irrevocable and everlasting blessings that are enjoyed by all and only those who are predestined to live with God forever in glory. This interpretation is perfectly consistent with Wilkins' "temporary justification" view; it would just be that Romans 8 isn't talking about that kind of justification. What's wrong with this?

The other option is that Romans 8 is actually referring to the "covenatnal" kinds of justification and glorification. Paul is telling the Christians in Rome that, because they have been united to Christ in their baptisms, they may have confidence that they are in the possession of Him who is able to keep them from falling. There is now no condemnation for those who ARE in Christ Jesus. So we need to STAY in Christ Jesus, by faith (of course), and in so doing we really will never have to worry about condemnation. This interpretation is unacceptable to Wilkins' critics, because they do not allow that there is any such things as "covenantal justification," or "covenantal salvation;" I'm sure it's also unacceptable to them because this passage is such a well-used verse in Reformed theology that suggesting a different interpretation of it seems almost beyond all consideration. But, logically there is no problem with interpreting the passage this way; it does not undermine the traditional "ordo salutis" of Reformed theology in any way. It's just that on this reading Romans 8 doesn't happen to be referring to that traditional ordo salutis.

I don't know which interpreation of Romans 8 Wilkins would advocate, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of a discussion about whether or not his views are in conformity to the Westminster Standards.

Further, I don’t see anywhere in Wilkins where the difference between the two justifications is anything other than merely diachronic.

He clearly does just this, though, in his statements to the Louisiana Presbytery. He does not go into anything about these two "justifications" in his article for the FV book, because that wasn't the proper topic of that article. There he is simply discussing the way Scripture uses the word "elect" (according to his reading) to speak of all who are covenantally united to Christ by baptism. He is simply not trying to explain all the implications of this, or to explain exactly what this means for all the other words in the traditional "ordo salutis" ("justification," "sanctification," etc.)

Summation

So, where are we? I think it is safe to say that this particular argument that Wilkins is in contradiction to the Confessional teaching on justification is a non-starter. Where "the elect" are defined as those who are predestined by God to live with Him forever in glory, the portions of the Standards that Lane makes use of in this argument say the following:

1. WCF 3.6 says that the elect, and only the elect, are justified.

2. WLC 70 defines justification is the act of God whereby He pardons all the sins of a person, on account of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ.

3. WLC 68 says that the non-elect "never truly come to Christ."

Lane's argument cited all three of these passages, but it was really built on WLC 70's phrase "perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ." This particular argument is, I think we have seen, unconvincing. Nothing in 1-3 above contradicts Wilkins' belief in a temporary and lesser "justification" for NECMs.

The anti-FV challenge: Part IV

2007-04-09T15:27:00.000-05:00

(Opening Reminder: If you want to take a stab at making an anti-FV argument in accordance with this challenge, or if you simply want to pass along someone else's argument to me, then please e-mail me at xonhostetter@gmail.com. Cheers!)

--------------------------------------------

Continuing Introduction

I have taken this method of analyzing anti-FV arguments, in some form, out for a bit of a spin in some online discussions, and it has been suggested that my analysis of anti-FV arguments is somewhat ad hoc and that it like Frankenstein turns into a monster I cannot control. My "philosophical contortions are following an illegitimate hermeneutic of our confessions," whereby I end up making it impossible to show that Wilkins could EVER be outside the Confession, no matter what he ever actually said or wrote. "At this point I literally don’t see how Wilkins could be outside WS even if HE WAS TRYING to be an Arminian."

I don't think this is at all the case, and to show that it is not let's use two examples of contradictions that we should "expect" to be able to show, and which in fact we can quite easily. For the first, we'll follow the commenter I quoted above and try to show a contradiction between "Arminianism" (admittedly a little vague in this day and age) and the Westminster Standards. For the second, I have literally put a few "well known" contradictions in a hat, and drawn one out at random. The selection is Luther and Zwingli's dispute at Marburg over the Lord's Supper.

To be clear, I'm being a bit lazy here. I'm not tracking down precise quotes the way I would expect an anti-FVer to do. But this is because I simply want to show the basic format of how the arguments should go; I don't think it is necessary to provide detailed citations of everything because the contradictions I am trying to show are so commonly recognized already. However, I will happily do more of the 'leg work' if anyone requests it.

First, then, to Arminianism and the Westminster Standards.(And, as might be expected, I responded to this comment re: Arminianism in that thread at the time as well. I'm basically taking my argument in that comment and converting it into "the template" here.)

Basic Dossier

Alleged Contradiction Between: classical Arminianism / Westminster Confession

(Like I said, I'm going to cheat a bit here. I should really name a particular Arminian(s), but I take this particular example to be utterly non-controversial and so I'm trying to save time. If anyone honestly wants to challenge me for a particular quote from a particular Arminian, then I will happily provide one!)

Source: Xon Hostetter, comment at Greenbaggins

Contradicted Proposition: There is no group of people whom God has predestined from the foundation of the world, based on nothing foreseen within the people themselves, to live eternally with Him in glory. (pro/contra)

Arminian source material:

None provided

(Again, I know I'm cheating here!)

Confessional source material:

"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed: and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto. (WCF III.3-5)

----------------------------------------------

Argument Verbatim

We could easily show an (honest) Arminian to be out of bounds with the Confession, because an Arminianism affirms (at least) the following propositions:

A1: There is no group of people whom God has predestined from the foundation of the world, based on nothing within the people themselves, to live eternally with Him in glory.

A2: Christ’s work satisfying the law of God and dying as the substitute for sin was meant by God to apply to every single person who ever lives.

A3: There is no effectual call to faith in Christ which God makes to a person without that person cooperating with the call in a way that does not involve any assistance from God at all.

And we could easily show that the Confession denies A1, A2, and A3. (These three cover the “U L I” of TULIP. The “P” and the “T” are more complicated, because some Arminians believe in the “P” and some (Wesleyans) believe in the “T” at least in a theoretical sense. We could still give propositions for these Arminian positions too, and these also would clearly contradict the Confession, but doing so would take more time and I don’t see the need.)

The Confession’s teaching that there are elect people, chosen by God based on nothing in themselves, contradicts A1. Its teaching that Christ’s atoning work was intended only to apply fully to those elect people contradicts A2. And its teaching that God sovereignly and irresistably brings about faith in elect people contradicts A3. (Of course, for the full argument we would need to go to the relevant portions of the Confession and convert them into “propositions”, too…but I really don’t think that’s necessary here.)

------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but this seems fairly airtight to me. The dossier above is only for "A1", but I imagine we could do it up for A2 and A3 as well. But, if anyone thinks that either a. I have given a proposition an Arminian would not affirm, or b. the Westminster Standards do not really deny the proposition, then I'm all ears to hear your reasons for thinking so. But until someone points me to an error in what I have said here, I consider the contradiction between Arminianism and the Westminster Confession regarding election to be established.

---------------------------------------------------

Now, let's look at a second example if we like.(Expand to read about Luther and Zwingli, if you dare. If not, you're done with this post. You may pass "Go" if you like, but I don't have your money.)

Basic Dossier

Alleged Contradiction Between: Luther / Zwingli

Source: Xon Hostetter, here

Contradicted Proposition: In the rite of communion, Christ is present with the elements. (pro/contra)

Luther source material:

None provided; non-controversial

(Again, I know I'm cheating here!)

Zwingli source material:

non provided; non-controversial

----------------------------------------------

Argument Verbatim

The famous disagreement between the two Reformers at Marburg featured a sometimes heated dispute over the meaning of Christ's statement at the Last Supper: "This is my body." If we were to take this statement as our proposition, then there might seem to be no contradiction between Luther and Zwingli since both would say that the proposition "[The bread used in communion] is Christ's body" is true. But here we have the same obligation from earlier analyses to make sure that we understand the "usage definitions" of all the words used. When Luther and Zwingli respectively say "The bread is Christ's body," are they using all the words in the same way? If not, then we need to find out what their different meanings are and then re-phrase the proposition.

In this case, the difference is a Clintonian one over the meaning of "is." Zwingli argues explicitly in his writings on this topic that "is" is subject to several meanings, depending on context, before offering what he thinks is the properly understood meaning in Jesus' words of institution. Zwingli's answer is that it is the "symbolic" meaning of "is," where "is" carries a meaning similar to "represents." E.g., love is a long road, etc. Zwingli does seem to believe (or at least, some Zwingli scholars contend that he does) that Christ is present in the faith of the partakers of the Lord's Supper, but He has no literal presence in the elements of bread and wine to speak of. So clearly Zwingli would deny our proposition (in the Dossier): "In the rite of communion, Christ is present with the elements."

As for Luther, his consubstantialist doctrine is equally famous, particularly his formulation that Christ is present "in, with and under" the elements. Whatever exactly this means, it is clear that Luther is positing a "real" presence of Christ in the bread and wine. This is why Luther jumped up and down on Christ's words of institution, reportedly resorting at one point to angry repetition: This is my body! This is my body! Luther is using "is" in a more "regular" way, whereby one thing is identified with another. (The ways in which Luther's doctrine differs from Catholic transsubstantiation is beyond our scope here.) So Luther clearly would affirm our proposition: "In the rite of communion, Christ is present with the elements."

Thus, Luther and Zwingli clearly disagree with one another regarding the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

--------------------------------------------

Evaluation

Again, there's more that could be said; I'm just trying to sketch out how the argument would work within the parameters of the template. It should not be difficult at all to find the appropriate quotes of Luther and Zwingli which show the different ways they are using "is" and the different ways they conceive of Christ's presence in the rite of the Supper. (Zwingli, in particular, wrote explicitly about the word "is" in the passage in question, breaking it down into several possible meanings, and then arguing for the one he thought was correct (the "symbolic").)

So here we have an anlysis of different "usage definitions" working in the opposite direction than how it worked in earlier analysis (such as of the CCP Memorial argument against Wilkins). In this case, the superficial and equivocating reading makes the two thinkers appear to be compatible, and a closer reading reveals them to actually be in contradiction. (Whereas, in the CCP Memorial argument against Wilking regarding election, the superficial and equivocating reading was to see a contradiction, whereas closer analysis revealed compatibility.)

In any case, this is how arguments can be formatted to work within the suggested template while fulfilling rules I-III.

I think these four posts (this one and the three before it) can be allowed to stand as an introduction, more ore less, to what I'm trying to do here. From here out, we'll start looking at various anti-FV arguments and see if they pass "the challenge."

The anti-FV challenge: Part III

2007-04-09T14:42:00.000-05:00

Continuing Introduction

Now let's use the CCP Memorial argument from the previous post to illustrate a kind of template for evaluating anti-FV arguments.

The basic format will be to start by listing basic information about the argument. This basic information comprises the two sources of the alleged contradiction (so, the FV thinker(s) and the Confession they allegedly contradict), the source of the actual argument that they are in contradiction, and the proposition about which the contradiction occurs. This last field will be accompanied with a parenthesis telling which source is allegedly pro and contra regarding the proposition. This will be formatted as (FV/Confession). Finally, we will provide the primary source material that the argument claims demonstrates the contradiction (i.e., the quotes from the FV thinker(s) and the Confessional document(s).

This is a basic way to "database" the argument according to its main features in accordance with the rules I-III I've suggested for formatting these arguments. Once this is done, I will directly quote in its entirety (in blockquotes) the argument itself. This will allow us to see how the author(s) explains his reasoning, the precise in which they think the quotations they provide establish the contradiction, etc.

Finally, I will offer evaluation of the argument.

(And, though this is generally inapplicable because anti-FV arguments don't make the attempt, if any argument is given in support of the contradicted proposition being fundamental or indispensable to Reformed orthodoxy, then we will quote that argument verbatim and analyze it as well.)

Let's now plug the previous post into this template, which will make up the remainder of this post.

Basic Dossier

Alleged Contradiction between: Steve Wilkins / Westminster Standards

Source: Central Carolina Presbytery Memorial to the 34th General Assembly of the PCA (2006), later referred to the Standing Judicial Commission

Contradicted Proposition: The elect cannot do other than end up in glory. (contra/pro)

FV source material:

"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. (The Federal Vision, page 58)"

Confessional source material:

"...God hath appointed the elect unto glory..." (WCF III.6)

-------------------------------------------------

Argument verbatim:

TE Wilkins publicly teaches a doctrine of election in flagrant contradiction to our Standards. Whereas the Confession teaches that “God hath appointed the elect unto glory” (WCF III.6), TE Wilkins states that the elect are appointed to a conditional relationship which they can lose through unbelief. He writes: “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” (The Federal Vision, p. 58).

------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation

(Click to read evaluation: Mostly a repetition of previous analysis)

It looks like the CCP Memorial is objecting to Wilkins' claim that elect people can "lose their elect standing", whereas the Confession says that God has appointed them "unto glory" (which means that they have to end up going to Heaven, because everything God appoints to happens does indeed happen, according to the Confession and basic Reformed theology). Our proposition, then, is something like this:

P1: The elect cannot do other than end up in glory, [see above]

and it looks as though the Westminster Confession affirms P1 while Wilkins denies it. Contradiction, right? No, not so fast! Both the Confession and Wilkins use the word "elect," sure; but do they mean the same thing by it? Let's look more closely.

The Confessional understanding of "elect" is relatively uncontroversial. It is using "elect" to refer to those people whom God chose from the foundation of the world to live with Him eternally in glory. There's more we could say about these people, but that's the basic group that the the Confession is talking about whenever it uses the word "elect."

Now let's look at Wilkins' article in the book The Federal Vision. The CCP Memorial quoted page 58, where Wilkins is discussing what he thinks the Bible says about "the elect." He is discussing how the Scriptures use the word "elect," not whether he agrees with the "doctrine of election" found in the Westminster Standards. And he thinks that the Scriptures often use that word to refer to a group of people who have been chosen to be covenantally united to Christ by virtue of their baptism and who are thus obligated to cling to Christ by faith continually or else they will be cut out of the covenant and they will lose their union-by-baptism and they will go to Hell. This, according to Wilkins, is the group of people referred to most often when the word "elect" is used in the Bible. And this is clearly the group Wilkins is referring to in the quote the Memorial selects from page 58, in which he goes on immediately to say:

"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."

Here he is talking about a kind of election that doesn't have to do with whether you are predestined to go to Heaven; it has to do with whether you have a "relationship with Christ." And Wilkins believes that the Bible presents all baptized people as having a covenantal relationship with Christ, and hence as being "elect" in this sense.

Lest you think I am putting words in Wilkins' mouth, let's look two pages earlier in the article. His words on p. 56 clearly contextualize what he says on p. 58. On p. 56, before he starts listing out the ways the Bible uses the word "elect," he sets up that discussion by saying the following:

It has been the common practice in Reformed circles to use the term 'elect' to refer only to those who are predestined to eternal salvation. Since God has ordained all things "whatsoever comes to pass" (Eph. 1:11), He has certainly predestined the number of all who will be saved at the last day. This number is fixed and settled, not one of these will be lost. The Lord will accomplish all His holy will. But the term 'elect' (or 'chosen') as it is used in the Scriptures most often refers to those in covenant union with Christ who is the Elect One. (The Federal Vision, page 56, emphasis added)

Then he goes on immediately to sum up what he thinks is the Biblical teaching: "In the Old Testament,...." Notice two things that Wilkins does in this passage:

1. He claims that he is about to discuss the way the word "elect" in the Scriptures, and that he thinks such a usage is generally referring to a "covenantal" kind of election.

2. He also clearly claims that he believes in the traditional Reformed kind of election, in which God predestines who goes to Heaven.

So it is clear, in this very article which the CCP Memorial cites, that Wilkins believes in two kinds of "election" which are compatible. It is clear that they are compatible, because they are talking about two different groups of people (with some significant overlap, certainly) elected to two different purposes. He also makes it clear that he is about to launch into a discussion of the covenantal kind of election as (he believes) it is found in Scripture. The clear and indisputable intention of Wilkins' words in the passage on page 58 which the Memorial cites in its accusation against him, thus, is to refer to a group of people who have been chosen to be covenantally related to Christ by their baptism, but who have not necessarily been chosen to have eternal salvation. But Wilkins also, just as clearly and indisputably, affirms that there is a group of people who have been predestined to eternal salvation. Wilkins clearly believes in both groups of people. The latter group is what the Reformed have traditionally called "the elect." The former is what Wilkins says the Scriptures usually mean whey they use the word "elect."

So this means that there is something tragically wrong with the alleged contradicted proposition (P1), because clearly the word "elect" means one thing in the Wilkins passage cited by the Memorial and something else in the Confessional passage cited by the same. In Wilkins it refers to a group of people chosen to be covenantally bound to Christ by baptism, while in the Confession it refers to a group of people chosen to live with God forever in glory. Thus:

P2(Wilkins): Those chosen by God to be covenantally united to Christ by baptism can fail to end up in glory.

P3(WCF): Those chosen by God to live with Him eternally in glory cannot do anything but end up in glory.

Instead of one proposition, P1, which the Confession affirms but Wilkins denies, we really have two different propositions, P2 and P3, which are not contradictory at all!

So, what other conclusion can we draw but that the CCP Memorial has committed the fallacy of equivocation? Its authors clearly have assumed that "elect" carries the same meaning in both passages (WCF III.6 and Wilkins' article page 58), when it most clearly does not. When the two usages of "elect" are understood in their proper context, the alleged contradiction dissolves, and the CCP is left with egg on its logical face.

The anti-FV challenge: Part II

2007-04-06T13:42:00.000-05:00

Continuing Introduction

Following up on the previous post, let's review the argumentative burden for any serious critic of FV theology:

1. The critic must show that some FV thinker or thinkers hold a view which is in substantive contradiction to something that is taught by the Reformed Confession to which they are confessionally bound.

2. They must ALSO show that the view in question constitutes a "major" or "important" issue within the Reformed system of theology.

I mentioned in the previous post that we'll largely be bracketing (2) in these posts, because those who are critical of FV thinkers have generally not offered much in the way of (2). So we'll be focusing on (1). Now let's review the three rules for "formatting" the anti-FV argument:

I. When you formulate your argument, put it in terms of a proposition which is either affirmed by the FV thinker(s) in question but denied by the Confession, or is affirmed by the Confession but denied by the FV thinker(s). So, what you should actually try to do is establish that there is some proposition P, such that either

a. Some FV thinker(s) teaches/believes that P is true, and the Confession teaches that P is false; or

b. The Confession teaches that P is true, and some FV thinker(s) teaches/believes that P is false.

II. Provide the textual evidence from both "documents" that establishes the respective affirmation or denial of P.

III. Provide the further argument that P represents an issue of fundamental importance to Reforemd orthodoxy; i.e., that a person cannot genuinely be "Reformed" while either affirming or denying P (whichever applies).

Rule III corresponds to (2) above, which we are bracketing for the most part. So our focus will be on Rules I and II. Let's say a bit more about those now.

The first burden of proof (1) states that the critic of FV theology must show a "substantive contradiction" between the teaching of some FV thinker(s) and the Confession to which they are bound. What do I mean by "substantive contradiction?" I mean, basically, that the contradiction must not be in name only, a matter of what words are used. As I pointed out in a post interacting with Guy Waters' recent lectures in Greenville, SC:

If I define a "dog" as "any animal that likes me", I cannot then accuse my neighbor of contradicting me just because he says his dog doesn't like me. On my weird definition of "dog," my neighbor's dog isn't really a dog, and so there is no contradiction. Likewise, if my neighbor believes that there are some animals (at least one) in the world that do like me, then my neighbor also believes in "dogs" on my wierd definition. So we both affirm that there are animals that like me, it's just that my neighbor doesn't use the word "dog" to refer to such animals but I do. This would not be a substantive disagreement.

This point has become a recurring theme in my discussions about the FV controversy lately, and I'm not alone. (Click for two more examples.)

I brought it out again in a comment to another post here on this blog:

It's like if I hold a conventional definition of "cat," and so I believe that "My pet Felix is a cat." But my neighbor, say, has his own idiosynratic definition of "cat". He defines a "cat" as "any creature which likes me." But Felix does not like my neighbor, so my neighbor says that Felix is not a cat. Now on the one hand we seem to be in direct contradiction to one another; I say "Felix is a cat" and my neighbor says "Felix is not a cat." But, if we leave it at this and say that we are indeed contradicting one another, then we commit the fallacy of equivocation. We have to define "cat" in both statements. And when we do this, there is no longer any contradiction. (Because "Felix is an animal of the species felix domesticus [or whatever the coventional definition of cat is]" does not contradict "Felix is not a creature that likes my neighbor.")

But now suppose I go back and say, "No, this is not good enough! My neighbor is using the word 'cat' in a different way than how I use it, and this in itself is a substantive disagreement with me about the world." Would this make any sense? I mean, we can even sympathize with me that my neighbor's definition of "cat" is idiosyncratic and that idiosyncratic definitions are a bad idea in general and at the very least are prone to confuse people. But the idea that, even once the different definitions are explained, my neighbor is still contradicting me simply because he uses the word "cat" differently is misguided to say the least.

And, in the case of FV, I don't even grant that our definitions are idiosyncratic. They are not "standard" for Reformed theology, but this is not the same as being arbitrary oddities. So, a fortiori, it doesn't make any sense to accuse us of contradicting the Confession simply because we use certain ordo words in different ways, either.

And Jon Barlow also made this point in his criticism of Rick Phillips (who was criticizing leading FV man in the PCA Steve Wilkins) back in January:

Consider an analogy. Suppose that the confession contains the following line:
”The doctrine of the Trinity is that Father Son and Holy Spirit are unconfused persons who are the divinity.”
and that the Bible contains this line:
”Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego made up a trinity of dissent in the empire.”
Could a pastor remain true to his confessional subscription and say that the word “trinity” is used in a broader way in scripture than in the confession? Surely all would agree that the pastor could. And yet Phillips’s claim is analogous—that Wilkins can’t really believe that the Confession has a biblical approach to “election” while also teaching that the Bible uses the word “elect” in a broader semantic way. Phillips confuses the sign with the thing signified, and he takes no note of the level of discourse in which the sign occurs.

In any case, the upshot is that we have to be sure that we are not merely clashing over words, but over the substance of what those words are being used to say.

It is interesting that a common complaint levelled by critics against FV thinkers is that FV thinkers use traditional Reformed words in non-standard ways, and that they are at best unclear about the fact that they are doing this. I'll leave an evaluation of that criticism aside for now, and just point out the irony of the charge given some of the fundamental mistakes that the critics' own arguments contain along just these lines.

The most fundamental of those mistakes that critics tend to make is the fallacy of equivocation (or, alternately, the "word/concept fallacy"). I recognized in the previous post that my challenge might seem a bit obtuse; after all, FV opponents have offered plenty of arguments. They quote FV writers and the confession and juxtapose the quotations all the time. So what exactly is the point of my "challenge" to them to do that which they do already? Well, the point is that they don't generally do a very good job of it, and in particular they tend to commit the fallacy of equivocation when they attempt these sorts of juxtapositions. And this is one of the chief strengths (I think) of Rule I, that by forcing critics to put their anti-FV argument in terms of a proposition P which is denied by one and affirmed by the other it forces them first of all to state what they think the proposition is. Instead of simply justxaposing quotes from FV writers and the Confession and then tapping their foot impatiently as if to say "Well? What do you FVers have to say for yourselves?" as though the contradiction is obvious, Rule I requires them to state explicitly what they think the substantive meaning of the juxtaposed passages is. If it really is obvious, then that only makes the assignment a very easy one. If there is really a contradiction, then the substantive meaning of the juxatposed passages must be "P" for one passage and "not P" for the other. So then we can ask the very simple question: what is P?

But usually when we ask this question, it becomes obvious rather quickly that the fallacy of equivocation is being committed, because if we look more closely we find that the same words are being used in different ways. In other words, the critics of FV theology might offer a proposition P which they say is affirmed by one and denied by the other, but when we look at P more closely we realize that the FV thinker and the Confession are not using all words with the same meaning. To illustrate, consider my example about different definitions of "dog" above. On a superficial reading of the situation, someone might say that I and my neighbor are in contradiction about the truth of the proposition P, where P is "Scruffy is a dog." After all, my neighbor says that Scruffy is a dog (he affirms P), and I say he's not (I deny P). Contradiction! But wait just a minute. We are each defining "dog" differently. When I say "Scruffy is not a dog", I am really saying that "Scruffy is not an animal that likes me." (because "any animal that likes me" is my idiosyncratic definition of "dog"). But my neighbor is using "dog" in the more conventional sense, to mean a furry friendly household pet that barks (or whatever precise definition we prefer.) So, even though we are contradiction one another with our words, we are not contradicting each other in substance. Substantively, we are actually affirming two mutually compatible propositions:

My proposition: "Scruffy is not an animal that likes me."
My neighbor's proposition: "Scruffy is a four-legger friendly pet that barks."

These two propositions are not contradictory, in fact they are comaptible! They can each be true, and in this hypothetical case they actually are. To claim that I and my neighbor are actually contradicting each other is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. (Definition)

(In other words, it is to assume that two or more occurrences of a word all carry the same meaning, when they do not. "Dog" means something very different when I deny P and when my neighbor affirms P.)

To really see if we are in a contradiction with one another, we must "translate" the two occurences of 'dog' into their actual meaning as they are being used in each respective case, and then see if what I and my neighbor are saying truly represents a contradiction. In other words, we must pay attention to the actual "usage definitions" of a word every time it is used.

I don't mean that we need to live our lives always paying close attention to this, but only when we hear something that appears to us to contradict something else we think we know. In that kind of situation, the only way to proceed is to pay attention to how the words are being used in both cases. There may be a contradiction, such things do happen, and then we will have to decide what to do. We will have to accept one of the contradicts and reject the other. We cross that bridge when we get to it, and I do believe that such bridges exist. But is intellectually lazy and fallacious to simply assume that the words carry the same meaning without looking. And anytime an argument is made which depends on such an assumption, that argument has gone awry in a deeply fundamental way.

Now, let's get our hands dirty with an actual example from the FV controversy. I have discussed some examples before. But let's turn now to a quick examination of the memorial from Central Carolina Presbytery (PCA) which was submitted to the 34th General Assembly of the PCA (summer 2006) against Lousiana Presbytery (PCA) regarding the latter's exoneration of the teaching of Steve Wilkins. The memorial claims explicitly that Wilkins "persists in teaching and publishing doctrines which are in contradiction to the Standards." It then lists several specifications of this claim, in which Wilkins is quoted and the Confessional passage he allegedly contradicts is also referenced. In other words, in terms of Rule I, the Memorial claims that there is a proposition P which Wilkins affirms but which the Confession denies (or vice versa). Indeed, it reads as a list of such propositions. Let's look at the very first specification:

TE Wilkins publicly teaches a doctrine of election in flagrant contradiction to our Standards. Whereas the Confession teaches that “God hath appointed the elect unto glory” (WCF III.6), TE Wilkins states that the elect are appointed to a conditional relationship which they can lose through unbelief. He writes: “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” (The Federal Vision, p. 58).

Okay, so what do we have here? The Memorial claims that Wilkins teaches a doctrine of election which is in "flagrant contradiction" to the Westminster Standards. Okay, but what exactly is the proposition that Wilkins affirms but the Confession denies? This is where we have to do the work of trying to "translate" the Memorial statement into the format laid out by Rule I. Rule II is clearly met, as the Memorial identifies both the passage from the Confession (WCF III.6) and from Wilkins (The Federal Vision, p. 58) that it wishes to juxtapose. The question is how to accurately translate these two passages into the respective affirmation and denial of a proposition P. This is what Rule I requires the critic of FV to do. So what is P? Here are the two passages specifically:

WCF: "God hath appointed the elect unto glory" (III.6)

Wilkins: "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." (Federal Vision, p. 58)

All right. It looks like the CCP Memorial is objecting to Wilkins' claim that elect people can "lose their elect standing", whereas the Confession says that God has appointed them "unto glory" (which means that they have to end up going to Heaven, because everything God appoints to happens does indeed happen, according to the Confession and basic Reformed theology). Our proposition, then, is something like this:

P1: The elect cannot do anything but end up in glory,

and it looks as though the Westminster Confession affirms P1 while Wilkins denies it. Contradiction, right? No, not so fast! So far we're in the same position as the superficial analysis above which incorrectly judged me and my neighbor to be in contradiction about whether Scruffy was a dog. We have to look, not just at the words used, but what they are used to mean in each case. We have to look at the "usage definitions." Both the Confession and Wilkins use the word "elect," sure; but do they mean the same thing by it? Let's look more closely.

The Confessional understanding of "elect" is relatively uncontroversial. It is using "elect" to refer to those people whom God chose from the foundation of the world to live with Him eternally in glory. There's more we could say about these people, but that's the basic group that the the Confession is talking about whenever it uses the word "elect."

Now let's look at Wilkins' article in the book The Federal Vision. The CCP Memorial quoted page 58, where Wilkins is discussing what he thinks the Bible says about "the elect." He is discussing how the Scriptures use the word "elect." And he thinks that the Scriptures often use that word to refer to a group of people who have been chosen to be covenantally united to Christ by virtue of their baptism and who are thus obligated to cling to Christ by faith continually or else they will be cut out of the covenant and they will lose their union-by-baptism and they will go to Hell. This, according to Wilkins, is the group of people referred to most often when the word "elect" is used in the Bible. And this is clearly the group Wilkins is referring to in the quote the Memorial selects from page 58, a passage goes on immediately to say: "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." Here he is talking about a kind of election that doesn't have to do with whether you are predestined to go to Heaven; it has to do with whether you have a "relationship with Christ." And Wilkins believes that the Bible presents all baptized people as having a covenantal relationship with Christ, and hence as being "elect" in this sense.

Lest you think I am just putting a distinction into Wilkins' mouth that isn't really there, look two pages earlier in the article. Before he starts listing out the ways the Bible uses the word "elect," he sets up that discussion by saying the following:

It has been the common practice in Reformed circles to use the term 'elect' to refer only to those who are predestined to eternal salvation. Sine God has ordained all things "whatsoever comes to pass" (Eph. 1:11), He has certainly predestined the number of all who will be saved at the last day. This number is fixed and settled, not one of these will be lost. The Lord will accomplish all His holy will. But the term 'elect' (or 'chosen') as it is used in the Scriptures most often refers to those in covenant union with Christ who is the Elect One. (The Federal Vision, page 56, emphasis added)

Then he goes on immediately to sum up what he thinks is the Biblical teaching: "In the Old Testament,...." The clear and indisputable intention of Wilkins' words in the passage the Memorial cites, thus, is to refer to a group of people who have been chosen to be covenantally related to Christ by their baptism, but who have not necessarily been chosen to have eternal salvation. But Wilkins also, just as clearly and indisputably, affirms that there is a group of people who have been predestined to eternal salvation. Wilkins clearly believes in both groups of people. The latter group is what the Reformed have traditionally called "the elect." The former is what Wilkins says the Scriptures usually mean whey they use the word "elect."

Now, perhaps Wilkins is wrong about how the Bible actually uses the word "elect." (I don't think he is, though) But that does not matter in this discussion. What matters in this discusion is whether Wilkins' claim amounts to a substantive contradiction of the Confessional claim regarding the "elect." The CCP Memorial does not charge Wilkins with misunderstanding some passages of Scripture (because if that was the standard, who could stand?); it charges him with teaching "a doctrine of election that is in flagrant contradiction to our Standards." But does he?

Wilkins is positing two different groups of people (with some overlap, no doubt), chosen to two different realities (one is chosen to be covenantally united to Christ for at least a time, the other is chosen to be saved for all eternity). He says that both of these can be called "elect." This is clear as day. In the passage on page 58, though, he is talking about the 'covenantal-baptized' kind of election. This is clearly what he is referring to when he uses the word "elect" on page 58.

So, we are now ready to look more closely at P1 by taking into account the different meanings that "elect" has in the two teachings. In the Confessional teaching cited by the CCP Memorial, "elect" means "those predestined for eternal salvation", or "those chosen by God to live with Him eternally in glory," etc. In Wilkins' teaching cited by the Memorial, "elect" means "those who have been covenantally united to Christ by baptism," or something close to that. When we plug these new "usage definitions" into P1, we actually get two different propositions:

P2(WCF): Those chosen by God to live with Him eternally in glory cannot do anything but end up in glory.

P3(Wilkins): Those chosen by God to be covenantally united to Christ by baptism can fail to end up in glory.

Instead of one proposition, P1, which the Confession affirms but Wilkins denies, we really have two different propositions, P2 and P3, which are not contradictory at all. In fact, just like with our 'dog' example above, they are mutually compatible: they can both be true! As a matter of fact, Wilkins himself believes both of them, as is made abundantly clear in the quote from page 56 of his article.

So, what other conclusion can we draw but that the CCP Memorial has committed the fallacy of equivocation? Its authors clearly have assumed that "elect" carries the same meaning in both passages (WCF III.6 and Wilkins' article page 58), when it most clearly does not. (Further)

(Further, we can be even more aggressive and say that, even if Wilkins' own meaning WAS unclear, it is STILL the fallacy of equivocation to assume that the meaning of "elect" is identical in both passages. It is ALWAYS a fallacy to assume that two usages of a word carry the same meaning. That they do so must be demonstrated by a clear reading (taking the full context into account) of both passages in which the respective usages occur. If one or both passages are unclear, then you are no more warranted to assume that they both use the word with the same meaning than you are to assume that the meaning is different. You would simply have to admit that you don't KNOW if the meanings are the same in that case, but if you don't know they are the same then you CANNOT use those passages to show a contradiction. So, even if Wilkins is unclear (which he's not, frankly), the CCP Memorial has argued fallaciously.)

If we try to defend the suthors of the Memorial by suggesting that they meant something else as the contradicted proposition other than P1, then we have to supply the new contradicted proposition. For my money, I don't see what it could be.

Unofortunately, this is not an isolated incident. We can multiply these sorts of examples from anti-FV arguments. In fact, my observation of this fact (toot! toot!) is what 'inspired' me to pose this challenge in the first place. Too many of these arguments take the form of Quote-Quote-Tada! without anyone making sure that the words carry the same meaning in both quotes. When we try to isolate the proposition that is being contradicted as required by Rule I, the unworkability of the argument becomes obvious.

This is just a complex way of saying that anti-FVers "take FV writers out of context." I have no doubt that it annoys FV's opponents to hear this charge repeated yet again, but what else can we say? This is a textbook case. And we will see more. It is one thing to claim that FVers are just "whining" about being taking out of context, it is another thing when they provide detailed argumentation that this is so. We have just seen, in detail, that the CCP Memorial did indeed "take Wilkins out of context." Sadly, my own suspicion is that the detailed nature of this post will cause critics to dismiss it on those grounds. You know, I just need to get a life. But, if someone isn't putting up these sorts of detailed responses, then the opposite charge will be made that FV sympathizers claim they are misrepresented because they are "whining."

But now my tone is perhaps too aggressive for my and others' tastes. I really do invite anyone to "dialogue" with me on this and try to set me straight if you think I've missed something here. And I know it sounds like I'm being arrogant when I say that this is only the tip of the iceberg, but consider the position I'm in! I don't like talking this way, either. But it really is only the tip of the iceberg! :-)

In all seriousness, though, while I genuinely do offer my challenge with a sincere hope that godly men will take me up on it and we might have a fruitful dialogue, or at least that reading these posts might provoke some good and thoughtful dialogue away from this blog, I cannot apologize for revving the engine when the anti-FV arguments are so blatantly unsound, as was this one from the CCP Memorial. Real people, with friends and families and histories standing for the (Reformed version of the) Christian faith against the unbelieving world are being threatened with all sorts of penalties for their beliefs. They are "fighting for their ecclesiastical lives" in this. The critics are in no such danger; their ministries, congregations, and reputations are not being threatened to be taken away from them. So, yes, when critics in such a position offer arguments of the kind we've seen here and make other ministers vulnerable to suspicion or worse on such fallacious grounds, it is not "arrogant" for their defenders to point out that the arguments against them are rotten. May it never be.

The anti-FV challenge: Part I

2007-04-06T09:49:00.000-05:00

Introduction

A few months ago I offered a "challenge" to those who want to strongly criticize Federal Vision theology (i.e., to those who want to say that FV is "heretical," "heterodox," not really Reformed, worthy of discipline and dismissal from Reformed denominations such as the PCA or OPC, etc.). The challenge was put a bit crudely, and perhaps even a bit vaguely. I want to repeat it here in a way that is (hopefully) more clear.

Why am I doing this? My blog is not a happening place, and that's okay. I didn't really expect any FV opponents to take me up on my challenge. The invitation to do so remains open, but in the meantime I plan to do the next best thing. My plan is to start going through various anti-FV arguments that are already "out there" and translating them into the terms of my challenge so we can examine them to see if they really constitute fair, effective, or accurate criticism. Of course, I would prefer that anti-FV people come on and answer my challenge in their own terms. But, given that this isn't likely to happen, I have enough confidence in my own ability to understand their arguments that I am willing to represent them as fairly as I can and deal with their arguments that way.

So this brings me back to the challenge itself. and my desire to clarify what it's about. The point of my challenge is more than simple provocation: i.e., "Critics can't really 'get' FV the way they think they can; neener neener neener!" The point of my challenge is also to provide something of a structure into which these sorts of polemical exchanges can be evaluated. In other words, my challenge also helps to structure everyone's rhetorical behavior, my own included. I know that anyone who has read my blog much at all is completely unsurprised to hear that I don't think Lane or any other FV critics' arguments hold up. I'm already identified as on the FV side of the fence, so what else would people expect? That's fair enough, and I'm a presuppositionalist anyway, so far be it from me to try to convince anyone that I am "neutral" in any discussion. But the point of what I'm planning to do with my "challenge" is not to simply strut around attacking anti-FV arguments. Rather, the point is to show in a fairly systematic way why these arguments repeatedly fail. My thesis, if you want to call it that, is that there is a structure into which all good polemical criticisms ought to fit, and that anti-FV arguments in general fail to fit into that structure. But the structure is an "objective" thing (oh, rich!); it's not something I just constructed to provide an ad hoc rationalization against these poor critics of FV theology. Rather, it is a sensible and reasonable standard to hold any argument up against; reasonable people should be able to agree to have their arguments judged by this standard regardless of the particular issues that are being debated or their particular position in that debate. In other words, I do not think I am forcing anti-FV arguments to live up to anything that I am not myself willing to live up to. There are all sorts of arguments which we expect to be "good" and which (we will see) do conform to my method. It's just that many anti-FV arguments do not.(Elaboration)

(And do remember that by "anti-FV arguments" here I am referring to what I earlier termed "serious criticisms". I am not trying to defend FV theology on every point, or to deny that its critics have raised any valid counterpoints concerning FV exegesis of this or that passage of Scripture, or this or that doctrine of traditional Reformed theology. Rather, I am only concerned here with those who want to argue that FV theology rises to the level of being worthy of discipline in Reformed denominations, that it is in fact sub-Reformed (or non-Reformed), that it constitutes "heresy," that its proponents need to repent of serious error, etc. Amilennialists believe that my escahtology is error, but they do not (to my knowledge) claim that I should be barred from ministering in the PCA because of my eschatology. Eschatology is a "big tent" issue for the Reformed. My concern is with the arguments put forward by those who want to say that FV is NOT a "big tent" issue on which the Reformed can legitimately disagree.)

So, what is this structure that I am talking about? What, exactly, is the challenge I am posing to anti-FVers? From my original presentation:

I hereby challenge you to produce evidence that an FV thinker (you may choose any person associated with FV thinking who you would like to critique) is out of bounds with Confessional Reformed orthodoxy.

The idea I am working with here is that those who offer serious criticisms of FV theology bear a burden of demonstrating two different claims:

1. They must show that some FV thinker or thinkers holds a view which is in substantive contradiction to something that is taught by the Reformed Confession to which they are confessionally bound.

2. They must ALSO show that the view in question constitutes a "major" or "important" issue within the Reformed system of theology. To my knowledge, none of the denominations in which any "known" FV thinkers are currently ministering hold to strict subscription. Therefore they are not required to agree with every jot and tittle of the Reformed confession to which they are bound, but only to the overall "system of doctrine" contained therein. Exceptions are allowed. So, this second argumentative burden for critics of FV can be put this way: assuming that the burden of (1) has been met, why not simply call the FV thinker(s) in question to take an exception on the point at issue? Their view contradicts the Confession and you have helpfully demonstrated that; so why not call them to be "honest" and claim the exception openly and leave it at that? The "serious" critics of FV want to do more than this; they want to argue that the FV thinker(s) in question is actually not fit to minister in their respective Reformed denomination. Their theology is such that they no longer qualify as sufficiently Reformed. This is a further claim, beyond (1) above, and it also needs to be demonstrated. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the FV thinker(s) in question.

I think this is what it would mean to show that FV theology is "out of bounds with confessional Reformed orthodoxy." It both a. contradicts a Reformed confession, and b. does so regarding a doctrine which is so important as to be a sine qua non of Reformed theology itself.

Now, I think it is fair to say that so far in the FV controversy critics of FV have not done much work at all, if any, towards establishing (2). Some of the critics of FV are strict subscriptionists, and so perhaps the need to establish (2) simply doesn't occur to or interest them; showing a man to be in contradiction to the Confession on any point stands as sufficient proof on its own that such a man is not fit to minister in a denomination that claims to subscribe the Confession. (Elaboration)

(Of course, anyone who holds this view has a lot more fish to fry in the contemporary Reformed world than FV! Virtually the entire PCA, at least, has rejected strict subscription. Almost to a man. There are smaller Reformed denominations that have decided to take a stand on this issue, yet some strict subscriptionists have elected to stay in the PCA. This is fine, of course, but opting for this course means that they have to accept the argumentative burden of (2) when arguing against the FV, even if their own convictions are that such a burden is excessive. The PCA has ruled that it is not, and they have decided to stay in the PCA with these conditions in place.)

Others perhaps think that the issue being discussed is so axiomatic to Reformed theology that its importance to the overall system of doctrine is obvious beyond any need of demonstration. (Elaboration)

(This might be the view of those who claim that FV theology represents a contradicting doctrine of justification from traditional Reformed theology; it seems reasonable to think that, if a theology contradicts Reformed theology on justification, then it ought not be labelled "Reformed" itself.)

Whatever the reason for this neglect, though, it needs to stop. (1) and (2) are both necessary to establish the "serious" critical case against FV, and even if (2) seems obvious (depending on what doctrine is discussed under (1)) it will not hurt to make the argument explicit.

Nonetheless, (2) is not where the discussion has generally been taking place. For that reason, attention will be largely focused on (1) in later posts, but it needs to be remembered throughout that (1) by itself is not sufficient to establish the anti-FV case. So, to repeat: even if a critic of FV theology gives a dynamite argument along the lines of (1), and I and every other FV sympathizer concede the soundness of that argument, the critic would then need to go on to give an argument along the lines of (2) in order to show that FV is a defrockable offense. Otherwise he's simply shown that the FV thinker(s) criticized in his argument for (1) need to take an exception to the Confession on that point. But this hardly constitutes an argument that they should be given the boot.

That's my challenge to critics in a nutshell, but the real substance of the challenge is in the method I'm using to parse out what the arguments for (1) and (2) are. Focusing as promised above on (1), what am I looking for when I challenge critics of FV theology to "provide evidence" that some FV thinker(s) is out of bounds with the Confession to which they are bound?

At first glance, this request might seem obtuse. Haven't critics of FV theology already provided plenty of arguments to this effect? My answer is that yes, they have, and in one sense this is all I am looking for when I ask for "evidence." I just want to hear the argument (reasons either validly (for deductive argumetns) or strongly (for inductive ones) supporting the conclusion) that a particular FV thinker(s) teaches something contradictory to the Confession (usually Westminster).

In one sense, I freely admit that many such arguments have and continue to be given. But the point of my "challenge" is that I don't think these arguments (generalizing) are very good. More specifically, the point of my challenge is that I think there are a few eminently reasonable "rules" that any such argument could follow if it was good, but I don't think these anti-FV arguments are capable fo following them. So anti-FV arguments tend to be flawed in a very serious way.

The rules are as follows:

I. When you formulate your argument, put it in terms of a proposition which is either affirmed by the FV thinker(s) in question but denied by the Confession, or is affirmed by the Confession but denied by the FV thinker(s). So, what you should actually try to do is establish that there is some proposition P, such that either

a. Some FV thinker(s) teaches/believes that P is true, and the Confession teaches that P is false; or

b. The Confession teaches that P is true, and some FV thinker(s) teaches/believes that P is false.

II. Provide the textual evidence from both "documents" that establishes the respective affirmation or denial of P. This can be done with either a reference or an outright quotation (even better).

III. Provide the further argument that P represents an issue of fundamental importance to Reforemd orthodoxy; i.e., that a person cannot genuinely be "Reformed" while either affirming or denying P (whichever applies).

The original challenge, not put nearly so concisely in its earlier form, is for anyone who thinks FV theology represents a serious error to come on my blog (or e-mail me) an argument that conforms to these three Rules (I-III). I give this challenge because I do not think it can be done successfully.

Of course it is just the way the world works that there is subjectivity involved in this. I do not intend this to be some sort of "scientific" process that will yield objective and indisputable results. These rules are meant more as a helpful guide to enalbe us to better "zero in" on what we need to be talking about in order for this controversy to bear real fruit. (Elaboration.)

(This is also why I leave these rules less formalized than they could be. To any analytic philosophers who might read this, my rules are still kind of informal and incomplete. But to any "continental" philosophers who find analytic word-chopping grotesque, I have already gone too far in the direction of "modernist" pseudo-objectivity. I can only plead my own philosophical strangeness here; I myself have never felt at home in either the analytic or the continental philosophical methods, and so this half-hearted analytic method I am proposing fits well with my general m.o. For those who don't know or care about differing philosophical methodologies, sorry you wasted time reading this!)

For all my blustering about a "challenge," then, really this is just another roundabout way of "inviting to dialogue." Come forth, critics of FV theology, and present an argument that conforms to Rules I-III. Then let's talk about it. But, in the spirit of full disclosure, I admit happily that I have spent a lot of time thinking about these issues (not saying others haven't), and that I am pretty confident in my position. So, the reason I put this invitation to dialogue as a "challenge" (aside from the fact that I just have a playful and loveable personality) is because I really don't expect this to go well for anti-FV folks. But of course I could be wrong, and someone could come along who hands me my argumentative head on a platter. But I'll believe it when I see it. :-)

All of this remains, as I said before, as a standing invitation to any and all critics of FV theology. But, in the meantime, I am going to go with Plan B, which is to locate anti-FV arguments that have been given elsewhere (in published, lecture, or on-line form) and "translate" them into an argument that follows my three rules I-III above to see how they really work. But first in my next post I'll discuss the three rules in a little more detail, and outline some of the major ways that arguments will go wrong upon translation into the terms required by the rules.

Why, indeed?

2007-03-23T13:29:00.000-05:00

Someone who wants you to have to spend a lot more money on food every month than you do now sees fit to give us a quick economic lesson. Why is so much of our nation's spinach supply grown in one place and then shipped across (as much as "3,500 highway miles"!!!11!!1!) the country?:

Agribusiness — that's why. Supermarket chains, grocery wholesalers and fast-food producers all calculate that it is easier to maximize sales and profits by buying from big factory farms with reliable yields. Why fool with thousands of small farms or co-ops when you can get a standardized crop, packaged to precise specifications, priced at negotiated levels, trucked and delivered by known shippers? And when planes, ships and instant communications make it easy to import seasonal products from virtually anywhere on the globe?

Why, indeed?

Oh, wait, that question was rhetorical? Well then, a bit of advice about writing: choose rhetorical questions that have an obvious answer in the direction you want your readers to go, not in the opposite direction.

Seriously, think about what this person is saying. Everyone should feel guilty about buying produce from a grocery store, at a significantly lower price and with a greater variety of arrangements ("packaged to precise specifications"), and should instead start buying from local growers. Sure, it'll cost you more money, but living right ain't always easy. Besides, if this move puts more people into poverty then I'm sure someone else will come along and write an article telling us that it's all the fault of "big business." Often the same people whose policies make people poorer are those who claim to know who is "really" to blame for their poverty. And their solution never is.

HT: Mark Horne

Oh, no he did not just go there...

2007-03-22T15:40:00.000-05:00

Who exactly is Carl Trueman meaning to impugn with this sarcastic statement, I wonder?:

...Eichmann (who, contra some Reformed "thinkers," -- ahem! -- seemed to think that the Holocaust really did happen.....)

Hmmmm......

Honestly, the slander that passes for profundity in this "intellectual" corner of Christendom truly astounds me sometimes. I like stuff I've read from Trueman; why he gotta be like that?

You talkin' 'bout Rushdoony?

Asinus asinum fricat

2007-02-28T16:18:00.000-05:00

Not to name drop or anything, but Alvin Plantinga is a hilarious dude. His dry sense of humor, his Lincolnian facial features, and his booming baritone voice all combine to create a very pleasant effect when actually watching (or even, if you are less fortunate but still blessed, listening) him give a philosophical presentation. Don't get me wrong; people pick up his humor in his writings without such personal experience with the man himself. (And the fact that an analytic philosopher can be so funny should tell you something of his brilliance.) But when you've met him, even only briefly, paragraphs like the following are even more hilarious:

In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett approvingly quotes this passage from Dawkins and declares it an "unrebuttable refutation, as devastating today as when Philo used it to trounce Cleanthes in Hume's Dialogues two centuries earlier." Now here in The God Delusion Dawkins approvingly quotes Dennett approvingly quoting Dawkins, and adds that Dennett (i.e., Dawkins) is entirely correct.

Not to mention the substantive argumentation in his article, which demonstrates very patiently yet unrelentingly that Dawkins' aggressive atheism is a dead-end.

Oddly, Doug Wilson is offering what could be described as a more toned-down response to Dawkins (which I have also enjoyed greatly thus far). That tells you something right there. Yet Plantinga's arguments match their sarcasm with power. Anyway, Dr. Plantinga, dear sir, I salute you!

Say it in whatever lanugage you like

2007-02-26T08:15:00.000-05:00

Ἀνεστή.

He is risen....

The Woodruff Road Conference on the "Federal Vision:" Part III

2007-02-24T16:38:00.000-05:00

A Guide for the Perplexed

(Read Part I or Part II)

Talk #2: What about Baptism?
Guy Waters

Waters tells people to read his book if they want more details, quotes, etc.

(Substance starts at 1m25s.)

Now we take up the subject of baptism. First the view of our confessional standards, then a look at what the FV teachers say about it.

(view interaction)

Ah, welcome back!

It is definitely the case that FV thinkers have a “higher” sacramentology than (at least most of) their critics. What exactly this means will have to be laid out in more detail. Remember as we do this, though, that Waters is claiming not simply that FV thinkers are mistaken, but that they are heretical (by Reformed standards of orthodoxy). This requires some serious evidence and good argumentation. It is one thing to argue that a view is incorrect, it is another to argue that it is un-Reformed or that it undercuts some fundamental element of Reformed orthodoxy. People who wish to make arguments of the latter sort, as Waters is doing in this talk, bear a much heavier burden than those who simply disagree with the FV view. I don’t say this as a concession of any kind—I myself am persuaded by FV arguments regarding the sacraments. But the point to remember is that, even if you are not so persuaded, it will take a lot more than mere disagreement to show that FV thinkers are breaking with the Reformed faith.

As to the view of sacraments put forth by several FV proponents, let’s start by reminding ourselves of the fundamental distinction that was laid out during our interaction with the previous talk: the distinction between covenantal and decretal election. FVers, we all remember, believe that there are two different groups of people who we can legitimately (based on Scripture) call “elect.” One such group is those who are predestined by God to live with God eternally in glory. This is the common meaning when Reformed theologians use the word “elect”, and we can call this “decretal election.” But there is also another group of people that God has elected into a different state of blessing, into the covenant of grace. This group is made up of the vast majority of the decretally elect as well as many decretally non-elect as well. (We say “vast majority” because it is possible to be eternally saved—to be decretally elect—apart from the covenant of grace, but as the Confession says the visible Church is the “ordinary” means of salvation and so such people are presumably rare.)

Two different groups of people (with a good bit of overlap, to be sure) elected to two different ends—one to membership in the covenant of grace, the other to eternal life in glory with God. These do not appear to be in any way contradictory with each other, and so a Reformed thinker can hold to them both without contradicting the Confession. (The Confession only speaks of the decretal kind of election, but the Confession doesn’t tell us everything we are allowed to say. So long as the things we say do not contradict what the Confession says, our view is within Confessional bounds. This seems to be the only sane way to understand the binding role of the Confession upon Reformed faith and practice.)

It is very important to keep this distinction in mind when we start to consider FV statements on the sacraments. FV proponents are going to say, for instance, that baptism really “does” something, that it in itself puts us into the covenant of grace. Remember, though, that this is the covenantal kind of election that we are talking about—there are many people who are not going to go to Heaven when they die who are included in the covenant of grace. Yet, as we also discussed under the previous talk, FVers like to speak of all members of the covenant as enjoying a very real and even “vital” kind of union with Christ. There are real deep blessings that accompany the experience of all covenant members, even those who are not decretally elect and who go to Hell when all is said and done. These folks can even be said to enjoy “justification”, “sanctification”, “forgiveness of sins,” “salvation,” etc. Clearly the “justification” or “forgiveness of sins” these NECMs (that’s “decretally non-elect covenant members”) enjoy and experience is not quite the same in every regard as the “justification” and “forgiveness of sins” that ECMs (that’s “decretally elect covenant members) enjoy and experience. Still, FV thinkers insist, the Bible speaks this way, it uses these sorts of words, to describe all people who are in the covenant of grace. This is one of the main FV contentions that sets it at odds with its critics.

But it is precisely this distinction between covenantal and decretal election that is not honored in many criticisms of FV sacramentology. When the writings of FV proponents on the sacraments are considered by FV critics, the critics often end up labeling the FV view with labels such as “baptismal regeneration,” or claim that FV men hold an “ex opere operato” view of the sacraments, as those these terms by themselves would indicate heresy. It all depends, though, on what “regeneration” means, or what particular benefits one thinks come “ex opera operato.” Let’s spend a moment right now thinking about what these controversial phrases would have to mean in the context of what FV proponents actually say about the sacraments.

First, what about “baptismal regeneration?” Well, if by “regeneration” we mean the renewal of life or “new heart” that accompanies the experience of decretally elect people only (this is the way the Confession defines “regeneration”, for instance), then of course we cannot say that baptism regenerates. No FV proponent would be caught dead saying such a thing, for as we have seen FV thinkers recognize that, while all baptized people are in the covenant of grace, not all people in the covenant of grace are decretally elect. So obviously no experience that only holds for those that are decretally elect can be said to happen at, by, or through baptism to every single baptized person. Not every baptized person can receive such an experiential benefit, since the benfit in question is possessed only by the decretally elect and not every baptized person is decretally elect. This is an elementary distinction for FV thinkers, but many criticisms of FV views of the sacraments are going to charge them with being “baptismal regenerationist,” as though FVers assert a one-to-one correspondence between the performance of the rite of baptism and the renewal of life that decretally elect people receive.

Now, what if we take “baptismal regeneration” in a “weaker” sense? For instance, since we can say (according to FV proponents) that all members of the covenant of grace are recipients of real blessings that flow from being really and vitally connected to Christ (or, as we put it under the previous talk, all covenant members are in the covenant in the same sense), can we not say that all members of the covenant of grace, even those who are predestined to go to Hell, are recipients of a “new life?” Everyone in the covenant of grace has been brought from the old world of sin into a new world of God’s favor in Christ, where all spiritual blessings are held out to be received by all who are willing. There is a new world that has been created and planted right in the middle of the old world. This new world is the kingdom of God, which Colossians 1 associates with the visible Church (i.e., with the covenant of grace). So, in some sense, everyone who is in the covenant of grace has been brought into a new world, into a new kingdom where Christ rules and where all things are being made new. Of course, this doesn’t mean that all these folks are going to go to Heaven when they die. God has not decreed them all to do so. He has, however, elected them to be members of the covenant of grace for a while, and to enjoy all the unfathomable benefits that come from that membership. Is it really so far off to describe this experience of NECMs as “regeneration?” FV proponents don’t think so, and so they might be willing to say that even NECMs are “regenerate.” But, again, remember that we are using that term not in the “ordo salutis” way that is used in the Westminster Standards, where “regeneration” is used to refer to the “new heart” that only the decretally elect ever experience. Instead, we are here using “regeneration” to refer to the new world-kingdom of Jesus Christ, and we are using “regenerate” to refer to anyone who has been made a member of that kingdom through baptism, even if that person will later fall away through unbelief because they are not decretally elect. In this sense, perhaps some FV advocates would be willing to speak positively of “baptismal regeneration.” But only in this sense, and in this sense the word regeneration has a vastly different meaning than what we Reformed people are used to.

So, in one sense FV proponents might be said to believe in “baptismal regeneration,” though of course they are under no obligation to use that particular phrase (and they generally do not use it due to how prone to confusion it has become). They would use it only in the sense that they believe that baptism brings people into the covenantal kingdom of God on earth, a kingdom that has real benefits and which represents a new life which all baptized people enjoy, even if for the NECMs it is enjoyed only for a time. This will be obvious in every quote that Waters raises in his talk as evidence that FV sacramentology is “baptismal regenerationist.”

But, if Guy Waters or any other critic of FV wants to claim that FV proponents teach that baptism “regenerates” in the sense that it automatically gives the “new heart” which accompanies the experience of all and only the decretally elect, then this is a misrepresentation. FV proponents do not teach this, period.

As for the phrase “ex opere operato” (out of the working it works), we can give a very similar account of the FV view. The basic idea that a ritual like baptism or the Lord’s Supper can “do” certain things, even “automatically” through its operation, is not a problem in itself. Indeed, the Reformed have generally always spoken of “sacramental efficacy.” What does it mean for a sacrament to be “efficacious” if not that it brings about certain results through its administration? The Reformed fear of this phrase arises from polemics with Roman Catholicism, and indeed the Catholic position includes several claims about what baptism does which the Reformed do not accept. The mere assertion that the sacraments can do something in an “ex opera operato” way, however, does not make you a Roman Catholic.

Of course, we don’t want to say that sacraments do this in and of themselves, of their own power, because we are Calvinists and we don’t believe that anything can “operate” under its own power. God is the primary or ultimate cause of all things. So sacraments can’t “do” anything in this sense, but neither can you or I tie our own shoes in this ultimate sense. Only God can tie our shoes, by ordaining us to do it as “secondary” causes. It is the same with the sacraments. As secondary causes, they can do nothing “on their own;” but, as rituals ordained by God and accompanied by His promised presence, they can “do” interesting things indeed! God is the primary cause, but sacraments remain legitimate “secondary” causes in their own right. The sacraments themselves accomplish certain things just by being done, just by being “operated.”

Certainly, they don’t bring you all the experiential blessings that go only to the decretally elect. That’s not one of the things God has ordained sacraments to do, because God has not willed all partakers of the sacraments to be decretally elect. Yet still the sacraments do something. Even “ex opere operato.” Why not?

For instance, when you are baptized, as we have already discussed, you really are made a member of the covenant of grace. You really are set apart from the unbelieving world at large, and you really are made a member of Christ’s earthly kingdom (the Church). These things “happen” to you because you are baptized, when you are baptized. Baptism therefore can be said to “do” these things. In the very performance of the ritual of baptism, the recipient (whether infant or adult) is placed into God’s kingdom, into the covenant of grace. This is, if we so wish to speak, an “automatic” effect of baptism. But notice that this is not the same as saying that baptism automatically makes you decretally elect. That obviously cannot be the case, and nobody says that it is.

It is a commonplace of Reformed theology that the sacraments can only be “fully” or “most strongly” efficacious if the recipient partakes of them in faith. We feast upon Christ’s body and blood in the Supper by faith, Calvin said. Nobody in this debate is claiming that a person can “rest” on the fact that they have partaken in a sacrament without also having faith in Christ alone. If a person does not have faith, then they cannot be decretally elect. They can, however, be in the covenant of grace for a time, until they either cut themselves off through outright apostasy (i.e. leaving the Church) or are cut off by Christ in this life (through the Church’s exercise of excommunication) or the next (at the Final Judgment). For such a person, for a NECM, baptism and the Lord’s Supper do not have their “full” effect, as it were, because these people do not partake of the sacraments in faith. God is not mocked, and the faithless are cut out of the covenant sooner or later. (And remember, again, that it is God who decrees who has saving faith and who does not. If you are decretally elect, then God gives you saving faith. If God does not give you saving faith, then you are not decretally elect.) But, for these NECMs, the sacraments do have some effect. They really do make the person a real member of the covenant of grace (and the fact that he does not savingly believe ends up being a worse judgment unto him because of the great privileges he enjoyed for a time but in the end rejected). They unite the person to Christ in a real and even “vital” way. Etc. So, in the sense of putting a person into covenant with God in Christ and separating them from the world (as well as other things that we can look at in a moment when we discuss the teaching of the Standards), the sacraments “do” things, and they even do them “ex opere operato.”

Okay, isn’t this fun? Now that we’ve got a basic feel for the kinds of arguments that FV proponents make, let’s look at Waters’s presentation.

(1m25s – 7m55s)

5 Points about baptism from the Standards that Waters points us to.

(1) The sacraments are “signs and seals of the covenant of grace.” “They’re signs: they point, they represent Christ and His benefits. They’re seals: that is, they confirm Christ and his benefits to those to whom they belong.”

(view interaction)

Calling sacraments “signs and seals of the covenant of grace” is a common Reformed way of speaking, because it comes straight from chapter 27 of the Confession. FV proponents speak this way just as much as their critics. The question we need to ask is “What do these words—‘sign’ and ‘seal’--mean?” Let’s look at the Confession itself:

“Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.” (WCF 27.1)

Now, when Waters says that a sign “points to” something else (which the Confession doesn’t actually say), it might sound as though he is saying that the sign is this one thing over here, an isolatable individual thing, that just happens to bear a kind of connection to this other thing over there, also isolatable in principle. The connection might be thought to be only a happenstance between two theoretically independent “atoms” of experience, not an inherent or “molecular” connection between an organically connected pair. I don’t know that this is Waters’s intention, but it raises the question “How connected are the sacramental sign and thing signified?”

(We could perhaps pick better labels than “happenstance” and “inherent”, or “atomistic” and “molecular” to discuss the connection. That’s fine. My point is not to pick two labels for the connection between sign and thing signified and then force us to make a choice. Let’s not put this as an either/or. Let’s instead think of it as a spectrum and ask “How strong is the sacramental connection between the sign and the thing signified?” Is it a relatively weak connection, or a strong one?)

We’ve already seen that FV proponents posit a fairly “strong” connection between the sacramental sign and certain experiential realities that sign is meant to accomplish. Perhaps Waters also thinks it is strong, and this is not a point where he disagrees with FV thinkers. At the very least though we need to be on our guard here: if Waters intends to posit a “weaker” connection, what reasons will he give for doing so? How does he respond to the passages of the Standards which seem to make the connection rather strong? And, finally, why does he accuse FV advocates of being, not merely mistaken, but anti-Confessional on this issue? These are all questions which Waters must answer if he is to make his charges of heresy stick against FV theology.

Having briefly introduced the notion of sacraments as signs, let’s discuss briefly the sacraments as seals of the covenant of grace. Waters says this means that the sacraments “confirm Christ and his benefits to those to whom they belong.” Okay, that’s definitely one thing the Standards say, but is it all? It is important for understanding the FV position that we look at everything the Standards say here. Look at 27.1 above—it uses more than Waters’ “confirm” language. Look also at the following from the Catechism:

Q. What is a sacrament?

A. A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and to distinguish them from those that are without. (WLC #162)

So according to WCF 27.1 and WLC #162, the sacraments are signs and seals which have been ordained by Christ to “do” the following:

1. Separate the receivers from the unbelieving world at large
2. Put (i.e., “engage”) the receivers into a life of service and obligation to God
3. Confirm to their receivers that they have an interest in Christ.
4. Exhibit to those in the covenant of grace the benefits of Christ’s mediation
5. Strengthen and increase all the graces that people receive in the covenant of grace (one of which is explicitly said to be faith!)
6. Testify and make precious to all in the covenant of grace the communion they have with each other.

That’s quite a list! Again, since we are Reformed we know that God is the ultimate or primary cause of everything and so of course sacraments don’t do anything “of themselves” apart from God’s power. Neither does anything else in this world. I can’t pick up a piece of paper apart from God; likewise a sacrament can’t do (1) – (6) apart from God. But the whole point is that sacraments are not apart from God—they are ordinances instituted by God. And so, we can say that the sacraments “do” certain things. They do whatever it is their purpose to do, as that purpose has been set in place by God. What is this purpose? For starters, they separate, engage, confirm, exhibit, strengthen and increase, and testify and cherish. The sacraments do these things. This is what Westminster, which is the standard for the vast majority of conservative Reformed believers today, says.

Now, remember that we are talking about “covenantal election” here. We are talking about God’s favor as it is directed to all people who are in the covenant of grace. (1) – (6) above are things that all people in the covenant of grace can be said to have done for them through the sacraments. Not all these people in the covenant of grace go to Heaven when they die—not all covenantally elect people are also decretally elect. For decretally non-elect covenant members, we can say that they are enjoying the favor of God in a way that is only “temporary” (there may be other differences too, of course). And yet, while it lasts, they can still be said to be “under grace.” This is still a very real favor that they have with God. We can truly say of them that they have been separated from the rest of the world (even though at the last day they will be damned along with the rest of the unbelievers), that they have been engaged into a life of service to God (a life which they will not live up to, and in the end it will be a greater condemnation for them), that they have been given a confirmation that they really do have an interest in Christ’s blood, etc.

What about the decretally elect? Well, the sacraments are “doing” things for them, too. (1) – (6) are all enjoyed by the decretally elect since they too are (ordinarily) in the covenant of grace along with the NECMs. Let’s look at (5) in particular: it says that the sacraments strengthen and increase not only the faith of covenant members, but all other graces that accompany their membership in the covenant as well. So whatever you get from being in the covenant of grace, (and notice that the Catechism includes “faith” as one of these things!), it is strengthened and increased through the sacraments. The decretally elect are in the covenant, so they must have their “decretally elect” kind of faith increased and strengthened via their partaking of the sacraments as well.

FV advocates claim to take these elements of the Confessional teaching regarding the sacraments very seriously. The sacraments “affect” everyone in the covenant of grace, which means that the sacraments affect some people who are not decretally elect (since, as we have seen, there are decretally non-elect people in the covenant of grace). Whatever benefits coming from being in that covenant, these benefits are strengthened and increased through the sacraments. God has given His people the sacraments to confirm them and strengthen them in their faith and in all the graces that accompany their membership in the covenant of grace. This is true for both the NECMs (who can be said to have a kind of “faith”) and for the ECMs.

Waters continues under the first point to say this: “Notice that the sacraments are not the redemptive benefits of Christ themselves, they are the means by which the benefits are applied to His people.”

(view interaction)

By “redemptive”, does he mean to refer to benefits that are only fully experienced by the decretally elect? If so, then of course FV proponents will agree with him that the sacraments are not themselves the “full” benefits received by decretally elect individuals. Since in a sense we can say that only the decretally elect are fully redeemed (only they go to Heaven when they die, after all), and since the sacraments are received by all covenant members and not just the decretally elect, then clearly the sacraments are not themselves “the benefits” of decretally elect people. Rather, they are some of the genuine benefits received by the decretally elect (and shared by NECMs), but there are surely also other benefits that the decretally elect receive from God as well (such as eternal life in glory!).

Waters also seems to mean that the sacrament is not a benefit of any sort in itself, but is only the “means” by which the benefit in question is received or applied. Waters tells us to “notice” this, as though it is something we should be learning from his discussion of WCF 27.1. But nothing there tells us that sacraments are not themselves benefits; Waters is only asserting this. In fact, it seems from the way sacraments are described that they are very beneficial in nature. Through them God separates us, confirms within us our interest in Christ, engages us in a life of service, etc. Are these not beneficial things? So then are the sacraments God gives us to accomplish these beneficial purposes, no?

Why oppose the “means of grace” from “grace” itself? Grace is not a “substance” that needs to be dolloped out onto our heads, with the sacraments serving as metaphorical spoons we “use” to dish it out (or that God uses to dish it out). Rather, grace is, as the Reformed have always been fond of arguing, simply God’s favor. Grace is Gods’ favorable “attitude” or inclination towards us. We have a gracious God, which doesn’t mean that we have a God who goes around dumping “grace” on our heads. It means we have a God who feels a certain way about His people. All who are in His covenant have been separated from the world. They have been made “holy” in some sense. God looks at these people differently than he looks at the rest of the world. These people are under the favorable watch of God. Yes, some of them are not decretally elect and so God’s favorable gaze will not last forever, but while it does last they can be truly said to be “in grace.” God really is looking at them differently, treating them differently, making promises to them that He doesn’t make to the rest of the world, giving them gifts and benefits through a union with Christ that the rest of the world does not have, commanding them to live and walk in faith before Him. Are these not gracious things, in themselves?

Are not the sacraments themselves, therefore, part of God’s grace? They are not simply “means” of this grace (though that is an okay way to speak as far as it goes); they are part of the grace God gives to His covenant people. They are one of the “favors” that our favorably-inclined God does for us. He has done us the favor of giving us visible signs and seals that He has promised to accompany with certain benefits.

If God has promised to be present in the administration of the sacraments, if God Himself has promised to work in a certain way when the sacraments are partaken of, then who are we to deny that this is possible? If God promised to always give us a healthier heart rate when we ate a bagel, this would not confer “automatic” power to the bagel itself. It would mean that bagel eating had a power behind it—the power of God Himself fulfilling His promises. Of course, God has given no such promise concerning bagel eating. Concerning the sacraments, though….

Some of these benefits must be received by faith (again, there is no “free ride” for someone just because they have been baptized, for instance), but that just means that the person is to partake of the sacrament with the expectation that God will do what He has said He will do when that person partakes. Too often we Reformeds speak of the faith we are supposed to have as we partake of the sacraments as though this “faith” is somehow disconnected from the rite of the sacrament itself. This is not correct; I eat the bread and drink the wine, trusting that Christ is in that moment making Himself my Savior and my Brother as I eat and drink. My faith in that moment is precisely a trusting belief that Christ is present in my eating and drinking, not simply that Christ is present with me always, or in some general way. My own faith is made stronger as I partake, because as I partake I am actively believing and trusting that Christ is present with me even though I can’t see it. My faith is made stronger as I partake because I realize that every week I get to walk right into the throne room of God and eat a meal He has prepared for me. Little old me. If this does not strengthen my faith, then what will?

A lot of prologue at the front end of Waters’ talk, I know. Hopefully it will pay off later.

(2) Sometimes the Bible speaks “of the sign and the thing signified in such a way, our Confession says, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. This is called a ‘sacramental union’ of the sign and the thing signified.” This is a way of speaking.

(view interaction)

Hmm. Let’s look at the Confession on this point:

“There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.” (WCF 27.2)

The Confession says here that there is a sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. This union brings it to pass that the names and effects of each can be cross-attributed. Waters, interestingly, says that this is just “a way of speaking,” but that’s not what the Confession says! The Confession says that the reason we can speak this way is because of this “spiritual relation” between the sign and thing signified. This is a real connection which enables us to speak (to “attribute”) of the two things interchangeably. Waters simply relegates it to a “way of speaking”, as though it ain’t really so.

(3) The sacraments do not automatically convey grace, nor is grace conveyed every time the sacrament is administered. Our Confession speaks of a promise of benefit to “worthy receivers.”

(view interaction)

This all depends on what one means by “grace.” If “grace” is any favor from God, then the sacraments do convey certain graces “automatically”, as we have already seen. Being set apart from the world, brought into Christ’s kingdom, offered the fullness of the life that is to come; even if they are only experienced by a person temporarily, these are truly gracious things.

Now, perhaps Waters wants to define “grace” as “the favor of God that leads inevitably to eternal salvation,” or something along those lines. He is free to do so. But, as we pointed out in interaction with the previous talk, Waters then must re-read FV proponents in light of his preferred definition of “grace.” If “grace” for Waters only refers to “saving graces” that accompany decretally elect people, if the only people by definition who receive “grace” are those who are decretally elect, then of course no FV proponent is going to say that the sacraments automatically convey that kind of “grace.” It is the covenantal kind of grace that FV proponents are talking about when they say that the sacraments convey grace every time they are administered. At every baptism a person is made a member of the covenant of grace. That’s a “grace” conferred by baptism according to FV proponents. They certainly do not say, though, that “decretally elect” grace is conferred at every baptism. This, unfortunately, will be a point Waters mishandles in the criticisms of FV he is going to offer later in the talk.

As for the idea of “worthy receivers,” we’ve already pointed out that FV advocates are clear that in order for the sacraments to have their “full” effect they must be received in faith. Still, a few more comments might be in order. The phrase “worthy receiver” itself is found in WCF 27.3, which reads:

“The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.” (WCF 27.3)

A closer look at the actual “word of institution” might be helpful here. In the Directory for Public Worship which accompanied the Westminster Standards, ministers are told to say the following when administering baptism:

“That the promise is made to believers and their seed…That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized...”

It seems pretty clear, then, that at least some of the benefits being promised in baptism are benefits that are actually received by all covenant members, i.e., by all baptized people. All baptized people are to be told that they have been distinguished from the world, are bound to fight the world the flesh and the devil, are “federally” (i.e., covenantally) holy, etc. These benefits go to all baptized people—all baptized people are “worthy receivers” of these things. But of course not all baptized people end up going to Heaven. Not all baptized people remain in God’s grace forever, since not all baptized people are decretally elect. We have to “improve” upon our baptism, etc. And so we can also say in a sense that those who do not properly “improve” upon their baptism by clinging to Christ in faith alone do not receive the sacraments as “worthily” as others.

The sacraments are very covenantal kinds of things, ordinances for putting people into and strengthening them within the covenant of grace. These benefits must be received by faith, or else they will in the end prove to be curses. Not all who receive these benefits are decretally elect and end up living with God forever in glory. Not all receive the sacraments as “worthily” as others.

Waters quotes WCF 28.6: “The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered. Yet notwithstanding by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred to such, whether of age or infants, as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will in His appointed time.” Baptism is a means of grace. Grace is applied only to certain persons—those of God’s own choosing. And even that only at God’s appointed time. There is no promise that this grace is conveyed to every recipient of baptism. Why not? The sovereignty of God—the Holy Spirit is the one who confers grace to those to whom that grace belongs. And He like the wind blows where it wills, and the Spirit is not tied, the Bible says, to any single ordinance. There is never that one-to-one connection.

(view interaction)

Waters is obviously using “grace” here to talk about the kind of favor that God gives to the decretally elect. And he is absolutely right to say that baptism does not automatically confer that kind of grace and that such grace can be applied at times other than baptism even to those who are decretally elect. As we have already pointed out, no FV proponent would disagree with Waters on this point.

(4) “Baptism is not the means of grace where we would expect saving faith to be wrought. Preaching is where we would expect saving faith to be wrought.”

WCF 14.1: The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.

“So, baptism then is not to be looked at as a converting ordinance. We shouldn’t expect that men and women would be converted through the sacrament of baptism. Baptism is a means of grace that benefits and profits the already converted. It increases and strengthens, among other means, saving faith.”

(view interaction)

Yet again, this all depends on what Waters means. If by “converting ordinance” Waters is referring to the “conversion” undergone by the decretally elect, then he is missing an important point. FV thinkers also want to think of “conversion” and “regeneration” in their more covenantal senses. In this sense, it is baptism that first takes a person from the death of the world and puts them into the new life of the Kingdom of God. All who are in the covenant of grace are united to Christ and therefore receive “new life” in a very real sense. This new covenantal life, with all of its real blessings, can be referred to as a kind of “regeneration” or “conversion.” This is the contention of FV proponents, anyway. It will be no criticism of this position for Waters to simply point out that baptism is not the ordinary means of conferring saving faith to a decretally elect person. FV proponents don’t say that it is.

Second, even in the case of the decretally elect and the “fuller” regeneration that they undergo, does the Confession not say that baptism is a sign, seal and exhibit of all the benefits of Christ’s mediation? Is not one of these benefits which decretally elect people receive their regeneration? (This is to say nothing of the much discussed verse in Titus which speaks of “the washing of regeneration.”) And is there not a sacramental union between the sign (the baptism itself) and the things it signifies (one of which is the decretally elect person’s regeneration)? And, though the grace is not “tied” to the time of baptism, does the Confession not also say that through the right administration of it that its graces are truly conferred in God’s own time? So, when David the decretally elect becomes regenerate, even if it is not at the moment of his baptism, can we not say (if we wish to remain true to the Confession) that his baptism was an ordinance for his conversion? That the grace of his conversion was conferred to him by his baptism, even if not until a later time? David’s baptism is playing a regenerative role here, isn’t it?

Yes, the sacraments also increase and strengthen all graces which are already present (when they are partaken in faith). That’s a good thing to remember, too. Waters, though, wants to limit the sacraments to this role of strengthening and increasing, when that is not quite what the Standards seem to teach.

(5) To receive the sacrament of baptism is no guarantee that one will be regenerate. The Confession says that grace and salvation are not so “inseparably annexed unto it”—that is the ordinance of baptism–“as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all the baptized are undoubtedly regenerate.” (He is quoting WCF 28.5 here.) Waters then adds his own comments: “In other words, grace is not inexorably conveyed in or through baptism, and to have received baptism is no assurance that one is or will be regenerate in the course of his life. So we ought to think of the efficacy, the working, of the sacraments along the lines of the efficacy or working of preaching, for instance. No spiritual good is done to the person who does not by faith lay hold of Jesus Christ, spiritually held out in that ordinance. There’s no automatic benefit. There’s no guarantee every individual under that ordinance will profit spiritually from it.”

(view interaction)

Again, since only the decretally elect are “regenerate” in the sense that Waters is using the term, then of course baptism is no guarantee that one is regenerate. Not every baptized person is decretally elect. Amen and amen.

Also, we can agree that no ultimate spiritual good is done to a person who does not partake of the sacrament in faith. Such a person is not decretally elect, and so in the end when he is cut out of the covenant of grace and goes to Hell all the previous blessings of being in that covenant will have turned into curses for him. The point that Waters doesn’t seem willing to concede is that we can say there were real benefits for that NECM for a time. Membership in the covenant of grace is itself a blessing, a benefit, a grace—and this membership is signed, sealed, and exhibited (dare we say it: signed, sealed, delivered?) by the one time initiation rite of baptism.

(7m55s- 32m50s).

Now Waters turns to the view of baptism put forth by FV proponents.

(7m55s-13m58s)

He starts with some of their comments about the Westminster Standards. Waters reports that Douglas Wilson “says that the Standards have a much higher view of sacramental efficacy than have been admitted or understood by the Reformed church. In fact, he argues that his critics have taken a lower view of sacramental efficacy…in the Standards.”

“This would be a very serious charge if it were true. Without going here into the particular readings and arguments that Wilson makes, they’re not compelling. Nor has he offered any historical precedent for them. These are Wilson’s [arguments/insights], they seem to be about only Wilson’s, excepting other FV proponents.”

(view interaction)

Not a lot to say in response to this, since Waters doesn’t really give anything substantive to respond to. I imagine Wilson and other FV proponents would disagree that their interpretations of the Westminster Standards are weak and without historical precedent, and especially that they can simply be labeled as such without “going into” the particulars. Waters doesn’t have time to go into a lot of detail, so we’ll let this go.

Now onto Lusk, who employs a strategy that Waters says we can call “divide and conquer.” Lusk is “going to take the statements of baptismal and sacramental efficacy in the Standards and he’s going to separate them from the Confessional qualifiers. He says that we need to take the statements of baptismal efficacy on their own, and not water them down with the qualifiers.” Quotes Lusk at length (“one’s baptism is unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of HIS ingrafting into Christ or regeneration, of remission of sins, and of HIS giving up unto God through Christ Jesus to walk in newness of life. The Confession is very clear: every baptized person should regard himself as a member of the covenant of grace and united to Christ. Note that the benefits listed in 28.1 are spoken of in relation to the benefits of the covenant, not to eternal election, which remains secret to us. In other words, they are objective and applicable in principle to every baptized person. The blessings belong to the one baptized, regarded as a member of the visible church, not to someone who is secretly elect, or genuinely regenerate.”)

So you see how Lusk argues that “by virtue of baptism all that baptism points to should be said to be in the possession of the baptized.”

(view interaction)

Well, it’s in their possession in the sense that they really have been brought into the covenant of grace by their baptism and thus made recipients of all the promises that go with being in that covenant. Baptism points to covenantal privileges—these privileges are possessed by everyone who is baptized. Everyone who is baptized is in the covenant of grace and is united to Christ, and is thus genuinely offered all the blessings of full salvation in Christ. If they believe, then they will show themselves to be decretally elect and will be saved for all eternity. This is a genuine promise that goes to every single baptized person—in this sense, we can say that they all “possess” the benefits pointed to by their baptism. They don’t “possess” them in the sense that they are “guaranteed” to enter into eternal life. No, not all baptized people are decretally elect.

Waters goes on: “Now [Lusk] does say ‘Yes the Standards speak of receiving that by faith’…he says the promise only holds good for worthy receivers, that is believers. The objective promises are only realized by faith.”

(view interaction)

Indeed, Lusk says this. What reason will Waters give for why we shouldn’t take his explicit statement seriously?

Waters says: “But Lusk puts this together. This is what he calls the ‘paradox’ of the Standards. He says ‘Baptism saves, but not all the baptized are saved.’ IOW, he says, the objective meaning of baptism is not softened but our subjective response determines what we actually get from the sacrament, and that response is subject to God’s foreordination. Baptism is the offer, faith is the receptor.” Lusk summarizes his position this way: “The divines have given us a strong doctrine of the instrumental efficacy of baptism. Baptism is not in competition with faith, b/c baptism is what God does while faith is what we do. Baptism is God’s instrument in giving new life and forgiveness. Faith is the instrument on our side for receiving these things.”

(view interaction)

Right. In other words, not all baptized people automatically receive the full eternal salvation that “ought” to result from being united to Christ. Baptism does not confer all of its graces upon every single person who is baptized. Isn’t this what Waters himself said above under points (3) and (5)? Lusk says that not every baptized person goes to Heaven, or is “regenerate”. You have to have faith. Shouldn’t Waters agree with this?

Waters offers two criticisms of Lusk at this point. 1. Lusk’s paradox is not paradox, it’s a contradiction. (This gets a good laugh from the audience.) The question is, how can Lusk reconcile these two statements? And the answer is that he doesn’t. He simply sets them along side one another for us to behold.

(view interaction)

This is an absurd criticism, frankly. Consider the following statements:

A-- Baptism saves, but not all the baptized are saved.

B-- Smoking cigarettes kills, but not all cigarette smokers are killed (from a smoking related illness).

C-- Hammers drive nails into wood, but not all nails hit by hammers are driven into the wood.

Are any of these statements “contradictions?” Of course not! In (B), for instance, smoking cigarettes “kills” in the sense that it is an inherently deadly activity, but this does not entail that every individual smoker is “killed” by it. In (C), even though hammers are very good for driving nails, not every stroke is true, not every piece of wood is as receptive to the nail, and not every nail is as sturdy.

What about (A), then? Lusk is pretty clearly using “saves” and “are saved” with different meanings. Even though baptism “saves” in the sense that it is our initiation into the covenant of grace and it thus is the occasion of our being united to Christ and thus it offers us all the promises of full salvation, not every person receives the full salvation promised. Even when a NECM goes to Hell, though, we can still say that they were “saved” for a time. Why not?

Really, there are any number of ways to reconcile the two clauses of (A). Why Waters leaps to the conclusion that it is a contradiction is unclear. He’s going to do this again later in the talk as well. Waters is for some reason very quick to conclude that his brothers in the faith are contradicting themselves (sometimes quite stupidly), rather than seeking an interpretation that allows them to remain consistent.

2. Waters says that Lusk's view is not a true way of summarizing the teaching of the Standards. Baptism, as we’ve seen, does not convey everything to every recipient. True, some benefit from the sacrament, but only the elect, and then only in God’s appointed time. That’s not what Lusk has said. So Lusk has offered us a…re-reading of the Standards in a way that is unfaithful to them.

(view interaction)

But Waters has not shown that only the decretally elect benefit from the sacrament. In fact, given the things we have said, this seems false. The decretally non-elect covenant member doesn’t receive any benefits from being in the covenant of grace? Really? This can’t be true, and Waters certainly hasn’t shown that it is the view of the Standards. The Standards in fact seem to say just the opposite.

Perhaps Waters just means that NECMs don’t receive any benefits from the covenant of grace when taking the “long view.” So, ultimately when all is said and done, the blessings were only temporary and in fact become a greater judgment upon the NECM. If this is what Waters means, though, then Lusk doesn’t disagree.

Either Waters doesn’t substantively disagree with Lusk here, or Waters is asserting something that is pretty clearly false.

(13m58s – 20m27s)

Next Waters looks at what FV proponents have taught concerning the sacraments in the Scriptures. Peter Leithart is the proponent discussed here. Waters looks at Leithart’s comments on four passages--Acts 2:38 (“repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit”), Acts 22:16 (“now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, calling on His name.”), Romans 6:3-4 (“baptized into His death,” etc.) and I Corinthians 6:11 (“you were washed, you were sanctified…by the Spirit of God”).

(view interaction)

I don’t really want to say a lot about these Scriptural arguments one way or the other. I think that Leithart defends his interpretations admirably enough. His doctoral dissertation is devoted to laying out his theology of baptism, and he has written and published many articles on the topic. I don’t say this to “trump” Waters’ scholarship at all, only to say that I have nothing to offer as far as going back and re-covering the same ground that Leithart has already covered. Waters only has so much time in a lecture like this, so it would be unfair to expect him to interact with Leithart at length, but at the same time we must recognize that he is limited in how successful he can be in bringing down Leithart’s baptismal theology during five minutes of lecture.

The real point I want to make is just that even if Leithart is wrong in his exegesis of these passages it is hard to see how this necessarily affects his orthodoxy. A person can mis-interpret a particular passage of Scripture, but still remain orthodoxy in his doctrinal formulation. We would have to look at such occurrences on a case-by-case basis. Right or wrong, Waters doesn’t do anything to show that Leithart’s reading puts him out of accord with confessional Reformed orthodoxy, and so I’m content to just point that out and leave it be.

I will make one comment, though, on a general comment Waters makes at the end of his interaction with Leithart’s exegesis.

Waters says that Leithart assumes that every reference to baptism or washing is a reference to water baptism. But that by no means follows. It would require that the Spirit inevitably attends water baptism. 2 problems with saying this. 1. Counter-examples like Simon Magus, who were baptized yet remained in their sins. 2. The teaching of the Bible is that the “sovereignty of the Spirit” prevents there from ever being an inevitable connection between the Spirit and any one ordinance.

(view interaction)

It would only require that the Spirit attends water baptism in a “covenantal” way, not an eternally saving way. Simon Magus remained in his sins, yes, but he also for a time received the benefits and blessings of covenant membership and union with Christ through his baptism. The Bible does indeed teach that the Spirit goes wherever He chooses, but this does not preclude Him from binding Himself to attend (at least ordinarily) certain rites which Christ has ordained. If the Spirit has promised to be with us in baptism by uniting us to Christ in the covenant of grace, then God will keep His promise to do just that. This doesn’t limit the Spirits’ sovereignty at all. Certainly the Spirit has not promised to make every baptized person a permanent child of God who goes to Heaven when they die, though. Again, nobody teaches that.

(20m27s-32m50s)

Now Waters looks at FV sacramentology “more globally” (i.e., apart from focusing on their statements about the Standards or the Scriptures specifically).

Remember how FV proponents speak of election according to the decree and election according to the covenant. Now, we’ve seen how they collapse the two together—their “working” doctrine is the so-called covenantal election. Well, they do something similar here with the sacraments.

(view interaction)

But remember also that we saw under the last talk that Waters’ criticism here is misguided. So if he is about to apply that same criticism (that FVers “collapse” the two kinds of election together) to the FV view of the sacraments, then we have reason to be skeptical that the latter criticism will fare any better.

When [FV advocates] speak of sacramental efficacy in these very strong terms, they don’t always mean in terms of the redemptive benefits of Jesus Christ. Some of them will speak of the sacraments as “performative,” sociologically. That means that baptism as a public rite incorporates the recipient into the body of Christ, the Church. They’ll say they’re going to speak very highly in terms of that kind of efficacy. They want to be quick to say now don’t confuse this with the efficacy of individual salvation. We don’t affirm an “ex opere operato” efficacy of the sacrament in salvation.

(view interaction)

This is a good representation of what FV proponents are saying. Kudos!

BUT…it is not at all points clear when they talk about the sacraments in such strong terms whether they are in the ritual realm or whether they are in the realm of salvation. We observed that kind of lack of clarity in the last hour. So we need to hold that possibility open. And yet in the instances we’re going to look at, there can be no doubt that we are firmly in the realm of salvation.

(view interaction)

Here Waters returns to arguing for a blatant self-contradiction in FV writings. I don’t want to say that this sort of interpretation is never correct; surely sometimes people do contradict themselves so blatantly. However, it seems to me that such an interpretation should never be made lightly, and Waters’s way of arguing for it is truly awkward (not to mention uncharitable). Waters is trying to argue that, despite the explicit statements of FV proponents that they are NOT speaking of the sacraments in these “strong” terms when it comes to eternal salvation (i.e., the benefits that accompany the experience of the decretally elect only), they end up doing so anyway. They are confusing in places as to what they are talking about, Waters says, and in other places there can be no doubt that they are referring to eternal salvation.

Let’s first talk about those places where FV thinkers are supposedly “confusing.” If Waters acknowledges that FV thinkers say they do not attribute the “strong” sense of sacramental efficacy to eternal salvation, then isn’t the charitable thing to read these “confusing” passages in their writings in accordance with their explicit claims about what they believe? If Bob says he believes x and not y, but then in this other place he says something that could be interpreted as either x or y, is it really that hard to know what to do? Interpret Bob in a way that makes him self-consistent, whenever this is possible! So interpret Bob as saying x in the “confusing” passage. This is just what charity requires, isn’t it? To say “No, I’m going to leave the possibility open that Bob says y even though I know he denies believing y” is just stubborn. Even if you are right that he was confusing in the other place, didn’t he just clarify his view by telling you he believes x and not y? What possible reason could we have for refusing to take him at his word?

And this all assumes that there even are “confusing” passages in FV writings. Waters doesn’t really give us any examples. He has argued that FV thinkers “collapse” decretal and covenantal election together, but we’ve already shown how that argument doesn’t hold water. They don’t do this any more than Waters does in his discussion of the “judgment of charity;” they say that decretal election which is in many ways hidden from us must be understood and discerned from a “pastoral” or “practical” standpoint through the covenantal election which is revealed to us. This hardly seems a “confusing” thing for FV writers to say.

As to places where “there can be no doubt” that we are firmly in the realm of eternal salvation, we’ll have to look at whatever passages Waters actually has in mind. Surely if FV writers really do contradict themselves so brazenly—saying that baptismal efficacy only applies to covenantal realities but then also applying it to realities beyond the covenantal—then this is bad. But we should never judge someone as so blatantly contradicting themselves unless this is the only interpretation available to us. Has Waters taken this line of interpretation only as a last resort, or has he rushed to judgment? Let’s look at his passages and see.

Waters quotes Lusk (“preaching makes us desire what God offers us in the sacraments;” also his comment on Acts 2 to the effect that “preaching per se is insufficient…clearly Peter believes that God will give them something in baptism that they have not received through preaching alone.”) Salvation, in other words, is for Lusk a process begun by the preaching of the Word and completed by baptism.

Here there seems to be little doubt that Lusk is speaking in terms of sacramental efficacy “not in a sociological sense, but in its salvific sense. He’s talking about salvation, and what baptism does in salvation.”

(view interaction)

Not at all. The problem here is that while Waters recognizes that FV thinkers draw a distinction between decretal and covenantal elections, he isn’t allowing that distinction to work its way through FV theology. As I said in interaction in the first talk and then repeated at the beginning of this one:

“There are real deep blessings that accompany the experience of all covenant members, even those who are not decretally elect and who go to Hell when all is said and done. These folks can even be said to enjoy “justification”, “sanctification”, “forgiveness of sins,” “salvation,” etc. Clearly the “justification” or “forgiveness of sins” these NECMs …enjoy and experience is not quite the same in every regard as the “justification” and “forgiveness of sins” that ECMs … enjoy and experience. But still, FV thinkers insist, the Bible speaks this way, it uses these sorts of words, to describe all people who are in the covenant of grace. This is one of the main FV contentions that sets it at odds with its critics.”

This is a fundamental element of FV thinking, that the experience of decretally non-elect people who are in the covenant of grace can be described with words such as “justification”, “forgiveness of sins,” “salvation,” etc. They are not saying that these NECMs are saved in exactly the same way that ECMs are saved, just that NECMs enjoy certain benefits which are worthy of the label “salvation,” despite the fact that they go to Hell in the end.

Now, Waters says that “clearly” Lusk is referring to “salvation” (and by “salvation” Waters means eternal, ultimate salvation) in this passage. This is wrong: just because Lusk uses terms like “forgiveness,” “reception of the Spirit,” and “regeneration” does not mean that he is using these terms in the “strong” way that the Reformed usually use them when talking about the decretally elect. Rather, Lusk is simply referring to the very real and vital union that all covenantally elect people have with Christ. It is covenantal salvation which Lusk is describing as “begun by preaching and completed by baptism” in Acts 2.

I don’t want to get bogged down in quotes, but there are plenty of places where Lusk makes his view clear in this regard and clearly demonstrates both that he believes in a “covenantal” as well as a “decretal” salvation and that the “salvation” brought about by baptism is the covenantal sort:
“The visible church into which one is admitted in baptism is no mere human organization. Rather, it is, “the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God.” These categories are clearly soteriological, even if we must add that bare membership in the church is not enough to save apart from a corresponding life of faithfulness (keep in mind the objective/subjective distinction). Kingdom subjects can rebel, the house can become defiled, and family members can be disinherited. Nevertheless, to be in the church is to be in the place of grace and salvation.” (“Do I Believe in Baptismal Regeneration?,” emphasis added)

“But this shouldn’t be taken to mean the unbeliever receives nothing at the font. Objectively, his status is changed. No one, I hope, doubts that he becomes a member of the visible church (WCF 25.2). But we’ve also seen that that means he becomes a member of the kingdom, house, and family of God. Surely those are tremendous privileges! And, at the last day, the reprobate will be accountable for rejecting these privileges and judged accordingly. To whom much is given, much will be required!....

“This forces us to distinguish the kind of temporary forgiveness, enlightenment, and knowledge of the truth that future reprobates can possess, from the irreversible, irrevocable way in which the elect possess these same blessings.”(“Do I Believe in Baptismal Regenaration?,” Appendix #3)

We could add more passages to this, but it should be evident that Waters’ interpretation of Lusk is suspect. He has simply claimed that Lusk “must” be referring to eternal salvation, even though FV proponents speak of two “levels” of salvation and Waters knows this. Waters has a lot more work to do than simply to quote Lusk using “strong” benefit language to talk about all baptized people and then claim that this “clearly” means that Lusk is attributing eternal salvation to those people. Lusk believes that being in the Church is itself a kind of salvation! And clearly all baptized people are in the Church.

In reply, Waters says that Lusk “seems to be examining preaching as a bare proclamation of message.” But in Acts 2 it is clear that Peter is preaching “in the power of the Spirit” (by God’s power), and the hearers respond as they are enabled by a Spirit-wrought faith in what is preached. It is only then that they are baptized. Baptism is a seal and sign of the graces they now profess to have.

(view interaction)

I don’t know why Waters thinks that Lusk is treating preaching like a proclamation of message devoid of divine power, even with “seems to be” inserted for polemical modesty. Lusk says that in his Pentecost sermon Peter seems to expect God to do something in baptism beyond what He does through Peter’s preaching itself. This in no way denies that God is also present in the preaching. Perhaps God is present in both, preaching and the sacrament? This is the Reformed position, after all. In any case, Waters is imputing to Lusk something that Lusk doesn’t say here.

Furthermore, is Waters saying here that baptism is merely symbolic? Only a symbol for a reality that the baptized person already possesses regardless of whether he is baptized? This view would put Waters at odds with the Confession, not Lusk.

You’ll note in I Corinthians that Paul does not point to baptism as that which is used instrumentally in conversion. (“God was pleased through the message preached to save”) Paul doesn’t attribute it to baptism. Also in I Cor. 2 (“my preaching was in Spirit and of power that your faith might not rest on the wisdom of men but on the power of God.”) So you see Paul, when he’s reflecting on the Corinthians being brought from darkness into light, when he’s thinking on their conversion, he looks to the word preached—and the work of the Spirit by and with the Word-- not to their baptism.

(view interaction)

1. This is a false dilemma, either preaching or baptism.
2. The Word IS always involved in conversion, it’s true. But the Word is also present in baptism. Baptism is not simply water being sloshed on someone’s head, it is a minister of the Gospel pronouncing a word of institution as he places the water on the person to be baptized and baptizes him in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So again there is no need to oppose Word and baptism.
3. As we have said before, if what Waters means by “conversion” is the irrevocable resurrection of a person from death to life—the kind of “saving grace” that can only go to decretally elect people—then of course FV proponents agree with Waters that baptism does not enact this sort of “conversion.”

Another proposition of Lusk is that “Preaching communicates truth. The sacraments communicate life.” He quotes Lusk further on this point (“there is an equal ultimacy between Word and sacrament…”, etc.) Whatever Lusk intends, what he says is NOT an equal ultimacy. Attibuting truth to preaching and life to sacraments “downplays preaching.”

(view interaction)

This is another uncharitable attempt by Waters to find someone “really” saying what they deny explicitly. What makes him think that life is more important than truth in Lusk’s theology, so that associating preaching with truth is actually downplaying it? This just isn’t how we read people if we are carefully seeking understanding.

Now Waters looks at Wilkins saying that baptism brings one into covenantal union with Christ. He says that this is no guarantee of regeneration. And yet he goes on to say that at baptism you’ve been clothed with Christ, that the union with Christ is a real, vital, blessed union, and that in union with Christ we have “all spiritual blessings.” So on the one hand Wilkins says some pretty modest things about this union with Christ, but in other places he’ll speak in the strongest of terms. In terms of our covenantal union, we have all spiritual blessings.

(view interaction)

I’m afraid that this is another attempt to find “tension” where none needs to exist. Wilkins’ “modest” and “strong” statements about the covenantal union with Christ that all baptized people possess are not contradictory. Waters is assuming that a “vital” and “blessed” union must be an irrevocably and eternally saving union. This just isn’t how Wilkins uses terms like “vital,” though. Wilkins openly admits that NECMs are not eternally or irrevocably saved; they are not going to Heaven when they die. And yet he thinks that we can still use a word like “vital” to describe the union they have with Christ. So Waters is not reading Wilkins properly here.

Similarly, when Wilkins says that those who are covenantally united to Christ have “all spiritual blessings,” Waters immediately jumps to the conclusion that this is a contradiction with his more “modest” claims elsewhere. When Wilkins says that “all spiritual blessings” are ours now through our baptism into Christ, is he teaching that every possible experience a person could ever have in Christ belongs to him now? No, this is clearly not what Wilkins means, to wit:
“All in covenant are given all that is true of Christ. If they persevere in faith to the end, they enjoy these mercies eternally. If they fall away…” (The Federal Vision, p. 60)
So Wilkins explicitly excludes perseverance from the covenantal blessings that are ours in Christ. Being in covenant with God gives us “all that is true of Christ,” but perseverance in faith is not included in the “all” (it is rather a “human” condition for continued enjoyment of the “all”). This may be a slightly idiosyncratic way to use the word “all,” but we are Calvinists and should be used to such usages of “all” by now.

Besides, it’s not really all that idiosyncratic. Wilkins is saying that “all spiritual blessings” which it is possible to possess in the present are ours now in Christ. Obviously a blessing such as perseverance does not fall into this category. Nobody can possess such a thing now, not even the decretally elect.

Perhaps this still seems like an unreasonable way for Wilkins to speak, though. Since he says that “all spiritual blessings” belong to the baptized in the present but then excludes perseverance from those blessings, then does this mean that he is making perseverance a human work? Not at all. It is a still divine work, just not one that can be possessed in the present. To borrow from the hymn, “when we’ve been there ten thousand years” we will be in full possession of the gift of “perseverance”—we will possess it then because we will have already persevered. But we do not possess such a thing now, even if we are decretally elect. We haven’t yet persevered, so what sense would it make to say that we “possess” perseverance? And of course, when we do persevere, it is entirely the work of God. Whether or not a person does persevere is ultimately a matter of God’s decree. It is the gift of God.

Waters says that notwithstanding his qualifications, Wilkins is teaching a doctrine of baptismal regeneration. “The benefits that are said to come to each baptized recipient, in and through his baptism, are total, they are comprehensive.”

(view interaction)

Again, this is incorrect. Wilkins is not saying that “total” or “comprehensive” redemptive benefits go to each baptized person. In fact, he says just the opposite of this explicitly a number of times. If Waters wants to argue that Wilkins is actually talking out of both sides of his mouth on this, then he has to actually produce a passage in which Wilkins teaches that all baptized people are fully or totally redeemed. I’d suggest that he can’t produce such a passage, because Wilkins never says this. Waters has over-reacted to Wilkins’ use of terms like “vital” and “all spiritual blessings,” which Waters has given us no reason to think cannot be used to describe the union that all covenant members have with Chirst. Waters has simply asserted that “strong” terms such as these mean that Wilkins (along with Lusk) is attributing total redemption to all baptized people.

(32m50s-35m40s)

Now Waters takes up the question of perseverance. If we’re going to say that baptism is the occasion when all the redemptive benefits of Christ are conveyed to the recipient, then how are we to explain the fact that not all baptized Christians persevere to the end? Both Lusk and Wilkins heartily agree that they don’t all persevere. This is the question of perseverance, and of apostasy. How do we account for those professing Christians who, whether in doctrine or life, completely and finally reject what they once had professed?

(view interaction)

The way Waters sets this up is a bit odd, because he gives the impression that FV proponents have a “problem” with the fact that not all baptized Christians are decretally elect. This isn’t a problem at all for FV theology: it is one of its most foundational assertions!

In any case, to review the FV account of apostasy, apostates were truly members of the covenant of grace. They were truly in the covenant of grace and were thus united to Christ. This union was vital; it was salvific in the sense that all salvation is only found in Christ and all the fullest blessings of redemption were truly offered to these people through their union with Christ. We can say that these people were all “justified” in a sense, “forgiven”, “under the grace (favor) of God”, etc. They had only to believe in the promises to continue in that grace. Sadly they did not so believe, and so because of their unbelief we can say that they have forfeited the grace they once they truly possessed. They have broken the terms of the covenant of grace (that we believe and trust in Christ alone to do all He has promised to do for us), and have shipwrecked their faith. And, of course, this unbelief on their part was predestined—these people are decretally non-elect. God predestined them to go to Hell. But the way this eternal decree worked itself out in the visible world is that these people enjoyed a real union with Christ for a time, and then fell away from it.

First Waters presents the view of the Standards. WCF 17.2 (“..can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end.”) That is, those who …will persevere to the end. This is what the Bible teaches, Phil 1:6 (“He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it…”, also “we are kept by the power of God”, also “I know my Sheep…”)

Further, this perseverance in WCF 17.2 is not to be attributed to our own free will. We don’t persevere by dint of our own endeavor; rather, that perseverance is owing to the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father….”) Yes to be sure perseverance involves our persevering, our pressing on, but that is attributed to the work of God, not to the will of man, ultimately.

(view interaction)

This is all great stuff. Remember that we are talking about the decretally elect here, though. That’s who the Confession is referring to as guaranteed to persevere to the end.

(35m40s-43m55s)

Now, what do FV proponents say about perseverance? Lusk says that we [baptized Christians] are like Saul in the Old Testament and that we can lose what was given to us in baptism. (“Saul received the same initial covenantal grace that David Gideon and other men—saved men—received. Though God withheld from him continuance in that grace, he really did taste of God’s mercy and love, he really did possess the HS and the new creation life the Spirit brings. He really was adopted into God’s family, and really lived a godly and exemplary life for a time. But he failed to persevere.”) Lusk is saying that we have been adopted by God in our baptism, but now we must persevere or we can lose what has been given to us in that baptism.

Waters says this is counter to the teaching of our Standards b/c Lusk is saying that true grace possessed can be lost. The Bible and our Standards say that true grace possessed can never be lost.

(view interaction)

This is another unargued assertion on Waters’ part. (This is also the one question I wrote for Waters which he was able to answer during the Q and A session. On the quality of his answer, see my interaction with that session of the conference.) Clearly the Standards (and the Scriptures) teach that the grace received by the decretally elect is a grace that can never be lost, but where do they teach that no grace of any kind can ever be lost? They never teach this. At the very least, Waters has not shown that they do so; nor has he even taken up the task of trying to show it. He has simply read the statements of the Confession concerning decretally elect people and assumed that it is somehow denying grace of any kind to decretally non-elect people.

[Lusk] is also saying that sincere believers and hypocrites alike possess the same redemptive grace. But this contradicts the WLC (others [i.e., decretally non-elect] do have a kind of calling and certain “common operations of the Spirit,” but they “do never truly come to Jesus Christ.”; he’s actually quoting WLC 68 here.) So the Spirit works on the elect differently than on others. We cannot speak, as Lusk does, of this undifferentiated grace of God, and be faithful to the Scripture and the Standards.

(view interaction)

When Lusk speaks of “undifferentiated grace” given in baptism he is referring to the fact that all baptized people are in the covenant of grace. He is referring to the “sociological” benefits of baptism, as we have seen. We have also already seen that for FV advocates these sociological benefits are in a sense also “redemptive” or “soteriological;” that is to say, to be in the covenant of grace is itself a kind of salvation even if you end up going to Hell because you are actually decretally non-elect. Unfortunately Waters is opposing “redemptive”/”salvific” and “covenantal”/”sociological” in this lecture, and so he assumes (again) that statements from Lusk and other FV thinkers must mean that all baptized people are fully and completely saved (even though these men explicitly deny believing this!). The problem here is not an inconsistency or self-contradiction on the part of these FV proponents, but a failure on Waters’ part to discern that FV does not think of the salvation experienced by the decretally elect as the only experience worthy of the name “salvation.” So they can describe some very “strong” benfits that come to all baptized people without thereby saying that all of these people are “saved” or “redeemed” in the way that Waters uses those words.

Finally, back to Wilkins, who says that real blessings are lost, forfeited, by those who do not persevere. What blessings does Wilkins have in mind? Well, he says these blessings were objectively true of the Church by virtue of their union with Christ in the covenant (and we’ve seen that these come initially through baptism for Wilkins). And he lists these blessings: redemption through Christ, justification, sanctification, the resurrection of the body at the last day, the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the Kingdom, sanctification. All these are truly possessed and forfeited in apostasy. (40m10-35s)

(view interaction)

Right, but remember that Wilkins uses all these terms in a “covenantal” way when he ascribes them to the baptized. He is not claiming that everyone in the covenant has exactly the same experience. He is saying that things like “forgiveness of sins,” “adoption,” “sanctification,” etc. can all be said to be part of the experience of all covenant members, but when he says this he isn’t using those terms in the more common “ordo salutis” way that describes experiential benefits of the decretally elect only.

According to Waters this raises a problem for Wilkins. “If in baptism we are given all the blessings and benefits of Christ, and yet we may not persevere, then doesn’t it follow that perseverance is not among all the blessings and benefits of Christ? Does it not seem to be something that is produced by the person, and is not a divine grant?”

(view interaction)

No, because as we have already discussed Wilkins is using “all benefits” to refer to all the benefits that are available to people in the present. Perseverance, by the very nature of the case, cannot be possessed now by anyone. Perseverance is not “possessed,” though a promise of perseverance can be. A promise of perseverance is given to all who have been united to Christ through baptism, if only they will believe. Keep trusting in Christ, and you will be vindicated at the last day. So keep trusting! Believe!

Again, Waters has chosen instead to read the “all spiritual blessings” statements from Wilkins as simply claiming, despite his explicit denials elsewhere, that every possible thing that Christ can bring to a person goes to every person who is baptized. Then when Wilkins denies that perseverance goes to all baptized people he faults Wilkins for making perseverance a “work of man.” I’m sure that Waters did not give such insulting and superficial readings of the scholars he read when he was earning his doctorate at Duke. It is unfortunate that he has treated a fellow Reformed believer in such a way.

So we have then a doctrine where saving benefits conveyed through baptism are lost through apostasy, but this is counter to Scripture and the Standards as we’ve summarized.

(view interaction)

Sociological or covenantal saving benefits are lost through apostasy, but not the full benefits experienced by the decretally elect. Waters is still reading into the Standards a view that is not actually found there. Neither Scripture nor the Standards teach that the decretally non-elect receive no benefits or graces which can be called “saving.” They do teach most definitely that only the decretally elect are saved to the uttermost. But they do not teach that only the decretally elect are saved in any sense at all. Waters seems to think that it is sufficient to find FV proponents using words like “salvation” or “redemption” in describing all covenant members, and to then juxtapose those statements with the Confession’s assertions about the decretally elect, but this is an invalid argument and obviously so:

P1: The Confession (or Scripture) says that only the decretally elect receive saving grace.
P2: FV proponents teach that decretally non-elect covenant members receive saving grace (but then lose it through apostasy).
C: Therefore, FV proponents teach contrary to the Confession (or Scripture).

This argument is obviously fallacious, as it commits the fallacy of equivocation. The “saving grace” described in the Westminster Standards (or in certain passages of Scripture) is not the same as the “saving grace” which FV proponents (or other passages of Scripture) attribute to all members of the covenant of grace. The former is, by definition, irrevocable and permanent, while the latter is not.

On the “front end” we have something that looks perhaps quite appealing, a very high view of sacramental efficacy. Something that would ground assurance for all in the visible Church. But there’s a cost. And that is that one may lose everything that he has gained in baptism, through baptism, by apostasy. They don’t want to affirm that all the baptized are truly saved, but they must argue that what has been possessed can and may be lost.

(view interaction)

This is supposed to be some kind of “slam dunk” insight, but it’s not at all clear why this is a problem for the FV view. Baptism gives us real benefits, and those benefits can all be forfeited if we don’t believe.

Is this Arminianism? No! It’s Calvinism, because whether or not a person responds in faith is ordained by God without regard to anything in the person himself. Every Reformed person believes this about the preached Word, that it conveys real blessings to all who hear it but that if the hearers do not respond in faith then the blessings are forfeited. This is how God works out His eternal decrees in the visible, historical world. The decretally elect aren’t just magically zapped with some sort of enlightenment in a vacuum; they are brought to Christ through means. One of those means is the sacraments. Not Word only, but Word and sacrament.

Implications of this for the Christian life. It means that there is no assurance for any Christian at any time. Covenantal membership and baptism is no proof that you will persevere to the end. It seems that we have then a doctrine of perseverance and apostasy, a working doctrine of perseverance and apostasy, that resembles what is taught in Arminian theology: if one can truly possess grace in its fullest, or excepting perseverance, its almost fullest sense, and yet forfeit it.

(view interaction)

Except that Arminians don’t believe that the forfeiture is pre-ordained by God based on nothing found in the creature. The vast majority of Arminians believe that one can possess grace in its fullest and yet still sin, too. Should we reject this doctrine because it is the “Arminian view of Christian sin?” The definition of Calvinism is not “the denial of whatever Arminians believe.” The fact that FV proponents attribute everything to the sovereign decree of God makes all the difference here.

A further point to remember is that FV proponents (such as Wilkins) do not deny the “internal” assurance spoken of in the Confession. We saw this in the last talk. So it is gross hyperbole for Waters to say that the FV view means that there is “no assurance at any time.” FV thinkers do not teach that the “external” means of assurance like the sacraments are the only means of assurance; but they are a very real source of assurance. By insisting that the sacraments are also sources of assurance in addition to the “internal” sources that Waters insists on, FV theology is actually able offer more assurance to vexed Christians than Waters’ position. If a person does not possess the “internally” grounded assurance that Waters speaks of (and the Confession is clear that this assurance is not a necessary part of saving faith so not all decretally elect people will have it), then what else can Waters point him to? The FV advocate can point him to his objective status as a member of God’s covenant community, as a recipient of God’s favor in virtue of his baptism into Christ, etc. As I said under the first lecture:

“This is no shabby assurance, anyway. Even under the typical Calvinist view of assurance, there are many people who worry that they are not really elect, that all their previous experience in the Christian faith was just self-deception (after all, the heart is wicked in all things, and if I am still an unregenerate depraved sinner who is decretally non-elect then I shouldn’t be surprised if my heart deceives me into thinking I am regenerate and living a vibrant Christian life…). Believing that you are indeed connected to Christ in some sense now can provide a wonderful foundation of assurance for such a person. If I am connected now, then why not think that I will continue to be? As opposed to the more traditional Calvinist view, which is that you either always are connected to Christ (after regeneration) or you never are, being able to “hang my hat” on a connection now can be comforting.”

So much for Talk #2. Next up is Waters’ lecture on justification.

The Woodruff Road Conference on the "Federal Vision": Part II

2007-02-14T10:02:00.000-05:00

A Guide for the Perplexed

(Read Part I)

Talk #1: “Just What is a Christian Anyway?”
Guy Waters

(Waters actually begins his talk at 6m34s, with substantive presentation beginning around 11m00s.)

I. Covenant of Grace (11m00s – 29m25s)

The first theological issue that Waters addresses is the “covenant of grace.” He quotes from the Westminster Larger Catechism questions 31 and 166 to establish what this covenant is. According to WLC 31, the covenant of grace is a covenant of salvation made between God and Christ and all who are elect in Christ. So all the elect are in the covenant of grace. But WLC 166 includes more than just the elect in the covenant of grace. Here the Westminster Standards speak of children of Christians as being in the covenant of grace, which is why they are baptized. Now obviously we know that not all baptized people are elect (this is Calvinism 101), and so this means that the covenant of grace includes some people who are not going to go to Heaven when they die. Yet we still say that they are in the “covenant of grace,” even though they don’t end up receiving the gift of eternal life with God in glory.

(view interaction)

I wrote “Great start!” in the margins of my notes at this point, because so far Waters has said nothing with which an FV person would disagree. In fact, Waters’s presentation so far sounds like it could be setting up a pro-FV talk. This isn’t just a point that FVers agree with, it is a point they make strenuously because they think it is important and it is a part of what they are “up to” theologically to make it clear that there are people who are not going to go to Heaven that are in the covenant of grace.

So, there are non-elect people—people who are predestined by God not to go to Heaven—who nonetheless are in “the covenant of grace.” So far, so good. The question is, what do we mean when we say this? Waters goes on to explain it by saying that “not all people are in the covenant of grace in the same way.” Furthermore, Waters wants to use some particular labels for describing these different “modes” of being in the covenant of grace—“outward” and “inward” (or, synonymously, “external” and “internal”).

(view interaction)

This presents our first chance for some more in-depth discussion. There are a couple of moves that Waters has already made which are at least questionable. The first concerns the phrase “in the covenant in the same way.” Granted that we all affirm (and, as already pointed out, FV thinkers do affirm this enthusiastically) that there are non-elect people in the covenant, this affirmation amounts to a claim that there are two different kinds of people in the covenant of grace. Elect and non-elect (or reprobate) folks can both be found in the covenant of grace. So we have a distinction between the members of the covenant. But notice the particular way that Waters chooses to express this: “not all people are in the covenant of grace in the same way.” Waters is drawing a distinction between the “way” that different people are “in” the covenant, but this is not necessarily the same thing as saying that there are different kinds of people in the covenant. Why can it not be the case that the different kinds of people are all in the covenant in the same way? The difference then would be with the people themselves, not with their respective “modes” of existence within the covenant.

This is a pretty technical point of semantics, really, and depending on what exactly we think it means to be “in a covenant” we might find people on both sides of the FV debate affirming that elect and non-elect covenant members are “in the covenant in a different way.” So far, then, this is not really a “Federal Vision” issue. But it is an issue of clarity on Waters’ part, and his lack of clarity will have implications for the FV discussion, as we will see. Waters is here building up to a criticism of FV that he will offer a bit later, but that criticism will be unable to find traction until we clearly define what Waters means by being “in the covenant”. And this unfortunately is something that Waters does not do.

We probably need an example here, and so this is as good a place as any to introduce one of the favorites of FV advocates: the analogy of marriage. Marriage is a covenantal reality which includes some really good husbands and some really bad husbands. There are different kinds of husbands. There are husbands in the world who are more or less loving their wives as they should (by God’s grace), and there are husbands in the world who are not. In this example, would we want to say that the bad husbands are not married “in the same way” as the good husbands? Or that good and bad husbands are “in the marriage covenant” in “different ways?” One theological proposal of FV advocates is that this would not be a particularly good way to speak, because being “in covenant” is an “objective” sort of thing. It is true regardless of the way that you subjectively appropriate that reality for yourself (i.e., whether you are a good or a bad husband).

Or consider another example: the fact that I ate a turkey dinner is “objective”. Now, as I sit on the couch watching football a few hours later, it is an “objective” fact that I ate turkey, just as it is for Uncle Leo. But I am wide awake, while Uncle Leo is snoring. Why? Because there was something different about the way we each individually (or “subjectively”) “appropriated” the turkey dinner. Perhaps I drank a lot of coffee to try to counter-act the turkey’s affects, or perhaps I am just naturally not prone to napping in the middle of the day. Perhaps I kept myself busy in physically engaging tasks all afternoon (before sitting down to watch the football game, that is). Whatever the explanation, the fact is that we both “ate” the turkey, and we even ate it “in the same way.” Our “eating of turkey” is an “objective” reality that is held out separately from our individual experiences of it. There was nothing different about Uncle Leo’s eating of the turkey and my eating of the turkey. We both have similar digestive systems, our teeth and jaws both work in similar ways, etc. But Leo ate the turkey unto sleeping-on-the-couch and I didn’t.

Back to marriage, many FVers want to point out that the man who constantly cheats on and abuses his wife is still married. He is married to her in every sense of the word. Now, at the same time, we might say that there is a sense in which this abusive cad doesn’t “get” what marriage is really all about. And that’s certainly true, and a perfectly good and accurate way to speak. But what are we really saying when we say this? Are we saying that because the cad doesn’t “get” what marriage is, that he’s not really married, or even that he’s not really married in the same way as the good husband? I don’t think so. I think we’re just saying that, even though he’s married, there is something wrong with him. Something about the way this guy is experiencing his marriage (or his marital covenant), the way he is “appropriating” it for himself, is deficient. The problem with the cad is something about the cad himself, not with the “way” in which he is married.

Now, perhaps all Waters meant by "in the covenant in a different way" is that elect and non-elect covenant members do not have the same experiences as a result of being in the covenant. But if this is all he meant, then he's not saying anything with which FV proponents would disagree. And his later arguments against the FV will fall apart if this is all he meant (as we shall see).

So, returning to the covenant of grace, FV advocates are not keen to say that non-elect and elect members of the covenant are in the covenant “in different ways.” Rather, they wish to speak of the covenant as an “objective” reality that both the non-elect and the elect members share. They are both “in covenant” just as surely as Uncle Leo and I both really did “eat turkey.” Both are in the covenant of grace, full stop.

But this does not mean that FV advocates think that there is no difference between elect and non-elect covenant members. Obviously there is a difference between them, as we’ve stated from the beginning. We’re not going back on this earlier distinction at all. The distinction is still very real—elect people and non-elect people are not the same. They are different in a whole number of ways (we don’t need to list all those ways right now, but being a person who is predestined by the Creator of the universe to live eternally with Him in glory, and being a person who is predestined not to live eternally with Him in glory, are obviously two very different things!). But the distinction is between the people, not between the way they are in the covenant of grace. Two very different people can both be in the same covenant in the same way.

Now let's return to the concern that this might just be a debate over semantics. If Waters wants to insist on a different definition of being “in covenant”, then he is free to do so. However, and the importance of this point cannot be overstated, he must then re-interpret the statements of FV thinkers in terms of the new preferred definition. You cannot condemn the FVers simply over how they define a concept like "being in covenant." You must show that the substance of what they are saying is contrary to something important in Reformed theology, and such substantive disagreements rarely if ever come down to a disagreement over definitions. So, offer your own definition of “in covenant” if you want, but then you must also show that FV advocates are contradicting the substance of what you say when you use that definition.

If I define a "dog" as "any animal that likes me", I cannot then accuse my neighbor of contradicting me just because he says his dog doesn't like me. On my weird definition of "dog," my neighbor's dog isn't really a dog, and so there is no contradiction. Likewise, if my neighbor believes that there are some animals (at least one) in the world that do like me, then my neighbor also believes in "dogs" on my weird definition. So we both affirm that there are animals that like me, it's just that my neighbor doesn't use the word "dog" to refer to such animals but I do. This would not be a substantive disagreement.

Someone might want to say, for instance, that Uncle Leo and I did eat turkey “in a different way”, since I drank coffee afterwards and he didn’t (or whatever). We could say that drinking coffee after eating turkey is a part of "how" I ate turkey. There’s a difference in the way we each individually appropriated the eating of turkey ‘into’ ourselves, and this is all it means to say that we “ate turkey in a different way.” Or, regarding marriage, we might say that if the caddish husband doesn’t really “get” what marriage is all about the way a good husband does, then that means that the crappy husband isn’t really married “in the same way” as the good husband. In other words, we can build a particular subjective appropriation of some reality into our very definition of what it means to be a part of that reality, if we really want to do so. If we do this, then of course we’ll have to say that the bad husband and the good husband are not married “in the same way,” or that Uncle Leo and I didn’t “eat turkey” in the same way. But there are two things to point out about this state of affairs:

1. FV advocates might simply want to question this definition, for any number of reasons. At the very least it seems a bit strained.

2. But, if this is the definition of being “in the covenant of grace” we insist on—so that by definition anyone who isn’t elect has to be in the covenant in a different way than someone who is—then FV advocates also agree that elect and non-elect covenant members are not in the covenant of grace “in the same way.” So, if an FV opponent wants to define being “in the covenant” in such a way that elect and non-elect cannot, by definition, both be in the covenant in the same way, then that is fine: but they must then re-interpret FVers as also affirming the same distinction in covenant membership, since FVers also affirm that there are both elect and non-elect people in the covenant.

Now, what do we have so far? Does this even feel like we are having a discussion about Reformed orthodoxy? No, it doesn’t, because we’re not. No matter how we define these things, both sides are still affirming that there are both elect and non-elect people in the covenant of grace, as Waters points out is required by WLC 31 and 166. Both sides believe that the elect are predestined by God purely of His own grace without regard to anything within the elect themselves. Both sides agree that the elect are only justified through the instrument of faith alone, etc. Waters will argue later that FVers in fact violate the Reformed teaching of election and justification by faith alone, but the point is that nothing so far indicates that this is the case. So far, nothing we are talking about should necessarily have any implications about the Reformed orthodoxy of either side.

But there is a second problematic move Waters has already made, though this one will take less time to go through after what we’ve already said. Waters prefers the dichotomoy of “internal/external” or “inner/outer” to express the difference between elect and non-elect covenant members (henceforth, “ECMs” and “NECMs”). Waters wants to say that ECMS are “internally” in the covenant of grace (or perhaps “internally united to Christ”), while NECMs are connected only “externally.” Without questioning the legitimacy of the distinction between ECMs and NECMs, we might question whether speaking of the difference in these terms is best. There are plenty of other terms that could be chosen to label these different realities that are experienced by ECMs and NECMs. But please notice that a disagreement over what terms are best to use to describe the difference is not the same as a disagreement over whether there is a difference. Waters seem ambiguous on this point, which becomes plain in some of his later arguments against FV.

Waters points out certain passages which seem to be written to the whole Church and which seem to speak to everyone in the congregation as though they are elect/regenerate. The particular passages he mentions are Ephesians 1:4 (“elect from before the foundation of the world,” etc.) and I Corinthians 1:8 (“God will confirm them to the end, blameless in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ,” etc.). How can Paul speak to an entire congregation as though these things are true of them?

(view interaction)

This is still part of the “set-up” portion of the lecture, with actual interaction with FV views to come later, but Waters is pre-emptively arguing against some common FV passages. Again, nothing wrong with him doing this, but it is important to follow what is going on. These are passages that FV proponents have been pointing to from the beginning of this controversy.

To make the apparent problem that Waters is trying to answer clear, remember that we have already seen that there are both elect and non-elect people in the covenant of grace. This sets up, for Waters, two different “kinds” of covenant membership (or, as we might prefer to put it, it sets up two different “kinds” of experience that elect and the non-elect have within the covenant). There is a covenant membership that everyone in the covenant of grace, whether elect or non-elect, possesses (since we have questioned whether “internal/external” is the best way to speak of this, let’s just call this the “weaker” covenant membership experience), and then there is a kind of membership that only the elect covenant members possess (call this the “stronger” covenant membership experience). But now we take this awareness of two kinds of covenant members with us as we read passages like Ephesians 1:4 and I Corinthians 1:8, and we see Paul addressing the whole congregation together as though certain things are true of them. So, given that he’s talking to everyone in the congregation, we would probably expect that Paul is speaking to these folks in terms of the “weaker” covenant membership experience. Paul is describing things that everyone, both regenerate and non-regenerate, experiences in the covenant of grace. But then we read the language of these passages and we find Paul saying things like “you are elect from before the foundation of the world,” or “God will confirm you to the end, blameless…” This sounds like “going to Heaven” stuff, perhaps; it sounds like stuff that can only be true of those who have the “stronger” covenant membership experience (i.e., the experience only had by the elect/regenerate). So, it looks like we have an awkward choice here: either we say that Paul is saying that the entire congregations at Ephesus and Corinth are regenerate/elect, and are predestined to go to Heaven, or Paul is actually talking only to the regenerate members of the congregation even though he seems to address his words to everyone. Neither of these choices are happy ones.

How do we explain these passages? Waters suggests the “judgment of charity.” What is happening in these passages is the Scriptures are speaking to people “according to what they profess to be. They profess to be Christians. They profess, then, to be elect, justified, sanctified, all that a Christian is. And we’re going to address them as such in charity. We’re going to regard and speak to our fellow believers according to who they profess to be.” (16m10s- 40s) Waters discusses I Peter 5:12 (“for so I regard him”) and I John 2:19-20 as places where this is done more explicitly. (17m00s-21m00s)

(view interaction)

Okay, so notice the way that Waters has resolved the problem laid out above with these passages. He accepts that Paul is speaking to everyone, and he accepts that Paul is speaking of benefits that only actually go to the regenerate. But assuming these congregations were like every other congregation that has ever existed, not everyone in these congregations was elect, and hence not everyone was at that time or was ever going to be regenerate. So what Paul must be doing here, says Waters, is making a “judgment of charity” about all the people in the congregation. Even though he knows that not everyone in the congregation is elect, he goes ahead and speaks to them as though they are. We cannot read the hearts of people, so all we can go on is what they profess to believe and to some extent we can also look at their lives insofar as these conform to their professions. If a man says he believes in Christ, and his life betrays no scandalous contradiction of that profession, then we treat him as one who truly does believe. We speak to him as a person who really is regenerate, even though he might not be. This is the “judgment of charity,” and Waters is right to point out that it is a very common Reformed interpretation of these passages.

FV advocates propose a different way out of this pickle, though. They propose that Paul is in fact speaking to everyone in the congregation, but that he is only describing benefits that go with the “weaker” kind of covenant membership. So when Paul says that all the congregants at Ephesus were “elect from before the foundation of the world,” for instance, he is not telling them that they are predestined to go to Heaven when they die. Rather he is telling them that they are predestined to be in the covenant of grace. But being in this covenant of grace does not guarantee that they are predestined to go to Heaven, for there are people in the covenant of grace who do not go to Heaven (as we have already discussed).

Now, this might raise our eyebrows, because after all Paul says “elect” in this passage and we Calvinists have been trained to think that every time we see the word “elect” it must refer to people predestined to go to Heaven when they die. Indeed, every time I have used the word “elect” so far in this guide I have meant it in the traditional Reformed sense of “people predestined to go to Heaven.” This is a fine definition of the word, as far as it goes. We do believe, after all, that God predestines people to go to Heaven, and the word “elect” (i.e., chosen) is as good a word for these folks as any. But this does not mean that every time Scripture uses the word “elect” that it must refer to this group of people. Perhaps Scripture also speaks of an “election unto membership in the covenant of grace”, in addition to an “election unto Heaven.”

To be sure, the Westminster Standards never speak of this kind of election; they use the word “elect” only to refer to people predestined to go to Heaven. But the fact that the Standards do not speak of another kind of election does not mean that they are denying that there is another kind of election. Indeed, we would be in rough waters indeed if we read our Confession as positively asserting every position that was allowed to be believed. This is not what Confessions are meant to do, which is fortunate since no human document could possibly pull it off even if this was the intent. Indeed, many FVers think that reading Scripture this way makes sense of passages such as Ephesians 1 and I Corinthians 1. Here Paul is addressing everyone in the congregation as though they are elect, because they are elect…unto membership in the covenant of grace. And all the other benefits that Paul mentions in the rest of Ephesians 1 (and I Cor. 1) are benefits that come from being in the covenant of grace, not from being predestined to go to Heaven.

And just to be clear here, dear Reader, remember that we have affirmed from the beginning that people are predestined to go to Heaven based purely on God’s free grace without regard to anything in the people themselves. We have said this already, and we are not taking it back here. FVers are not denying that the Bible teaches this kind of predestination to go to Heaven; they are just denying that it is what Paul is talking about in passages such as the first chapter of Ephesians (or I Corinthians). Please reflect on this deeply for a moment. The claim that this or that passage of Scripture does not refer to a particular doctrine is not a denial of that doctrine.

So, for FV advocates we end up with two kinds of election. One is “election unto glory”, or what might be called “decretal election” or “WCF-election.” This is the election spoken of in the Westminster Standards, and by all Calvinists everywhere. This is God’s sovereign and wholly gracious choice to predestine a person to go to Heaven (and to enjoy all earthly benefits that befit such a status). But we can also speak of another kind of election, what might be called “election unto the covenant of grace,” or “covenantal election.” This kind of election is taught in certain passages of Scripture, such as in Ephesians 1 where Paul addresses the entire congregation by calling them “elect.” Most Calvinists do not recognize this kind of election, but it is not contradictory to the decretal kind and so shouldn’t be a problem. (Henceforth we will always refer to one kind of election or the other.)

This also helps to illustrate something of what is “new” about the Federal Vision (t proposes speaking of a kind of election that most Reformed people are not used to talking about (though many in the Reformed tradition have done so, so it is not “new” in that sense)), but also how it manages not to be contradictory to the Confessional standards of orthodox Reformed theology (this new kind of election does not contradict the decretal election spoken of in the Reformed confessions). Opponents of FV sometimes try to force a false dilemma upon its proponents along the lines that they are either “new” and unorthodox or they are orthodox but not new, but clearly they can be both new (in some sense) and consistent with orthodoxy, as their doctrine of covenantal election demonstrates.

Now is also a good time to point out that for FV thinkers a very similar kind of reasoning can be executed regarding a whole host of other terms that we often think of as only applying to decretally elect people. In Reformed theology we are accustomed to speaking of the “ordo salutis” where the various stages of salvation are listed out for the decretally elect. These stages include things such as justification, sanctification, glorification, etc, as well as various benefits that come with them (so justification brings with it the forgiveness of sins, for instance). What FVers are saying about these “ordo salutis” terms is the same as what they say about election. Reasoning from various Scripture passages in the same way they reason from Ephesians 1:4 and I Corinthians 1:8, they want to say that just as there are two kinds of election, one to covenant membership and one to Heaven, so there are two kinds of “justification”, “sanctification”, “forgiveness of sins”, “reconciliation with God,” “salvation,” etc. Just as there is an “election to covenant membership” which is different from the “election to Heaven” that we Calvinists are used to talking about, so there is a “justification for covenant members” or a “salvation for covenant members” which are different from the “justification for Heaven-bound people” or the “salvation for Heaven-bound people” that we Calvinists are used to talking about. There is, then, a “weak justification” which all covenant members receive, as well as a “strong justification” which only the decretally elect covenant members receive. But, again, please note that asserting the former sense of these terms in no way undercuts the latter, more recognized, sense.

Now, later on Waters will try to argue that there is a problem with the way that FV advocates assert these two different senses of all these words. That they are “collapsed” together into one or the other, or that one sense ends up contradicting the other. We’ll look at these arguments when they come up, but for now we can again point out that nothing said so far indicates that this is the case. At this point, these different senses of all these words appear to be perfectly compatible. If they are not, then it will take some strong evidence from FV writers and argumentation based on that evidence to show that they are not in fact compatible or that FV writers end up “collapsing” them together.

Now Waters turns to an explication of the FV viewpoint. (Around 20m55s on the audio.) 1. He quotes John Barach and Doug Wilson as evidence that FVers think that the covenant of grace is “objective.” (20m55s to 22m40s)

(view interaction)

We’ve already seen above that this is the FV view, so kudos to Waters here for a fair representation. Further, Waters doesn’t criticize this aspect of the view, except to say that it will set us up for understanding the FV view on things like baptism which he discusses in his second talk. For now, then, let’s just reiterate why FV thinkers hold this view: the covenant of grace, as the basic boundary that unites all under the “weaker” kind of covenant membership experience, is a thing that is “objectively” true for all of them. There are both decretally-elect and decretally non-elect people in the covenant of grace. For both of these kinds of people, they are in fact members of the covenant of grace regardless of how they “feel” about it or how they appropriate it into their own experience. As Waters has already shown from WLC 166, the children of believers are in the covenant of grace. This would seem to be independent of how they “feel” about it, whether they believe in it, or anything else within the child himself. Given all that Waters has said so far, this should be an “objective” matter for him, too.

2. Next Waters quotes Wilkins (“all the benefits”) and Barach (“covenant isn’t a thing, it’s a relationship…”, more than a contract, etc.) as evidence that FVers think that the covenant of grace is “essentially vital.” (22m40s to 24m30s)

(view interaction)

Again, Waters doesn’t say a lot here as far what is wrong with this in principle. We can guess that he objects to ascribing something so strong as a “vital” (i.e., living) union with Christ to NECMs (reminder: that’s decretally Non-Elect Covenant Members…) because he prefers to say that these are only “externally” in the covenant of grace. If someone is only in the covenant externally, this doesn’t sound much like a “living” connection. But as we have already seen, people (such as FV advocates) might disagree with Waters that “internal” and “external” are the best way to speak about the different people within the covenant of grace. Logically, there is no a priori reason why we should exclude from consideration the possibility that NECMs, while not predestined to go to Heaven when they die, nonetheless experience a union with Christ during their earthly life in the covenant of grace that is very much “alive”. Such a “living” union could still fall short of the “stronger” experience of ECMs (again, that’s decretally Elect Covenant Members…) even as it is worthy of the label “living.” At the least, we’d have to discuss particular passages of Scripture and the Westminster Standards before passing judgment one way or the other. Waters offers no real reasons to be concerned with applying the word “vital” to the connection that NECMs have to Christ at this point.

3. The final element of FV thought on the covenant of grace that Waters wants to point us to is that they believe the covenant of grace to be “undifferentiated.” (24m30s to 27m05s) This is the “rub” for Waters, the place where FV advocates clearly fall off the edge. “FV proponents will not warp, will not speak in terms of the inward/outward distinction that we just set forth a moment ago. IOW, covenantal membership is going to be spoken of in one and the same sense.” (25m15-20s) He quotes Wilkins on John 15 (“all the branches are truly and vitally joined”) as explicitly refusing to distinguish between “external/internal.” He quotes Barach as well (“…every baptized person is in covenant with God and is in union then with Christ and with the triune God. The Bible doesn’t know about a distinction between being ‘internally’ in the covenant, ‘really’ in the covenant, and being only ‘externally’ in the covenant--just being in the ‘sphere’ of the covenant…every baptized person is truly a member of the covenant…”).

(view interaction)

As we have seen already, FV proponents do believe the covenant of grace to be “undifferentiated” in the sense that it is objectively possessed by all covenant members (or, more properly, all covenant members are objectively in the covenant of grace in the same way). The “mode” of being in the covenant does not change from elect to non-elect. God makes the same covenant with all who are baptized, and all who are baptized are therefore in the covenant in the same way. (Again, unless we wish to define “covenant” in an idiosyncratic way and say that the very fact that God decrees someone to be elect entails that God has put that elect person in the covenant “in a different way”. But why define “covenant” in this way?) There are definitely two very different “realities” or “experiences” or “kinds of people” within the one covenant of grace. In this sense, then, FV proponents can say that the covenant is “differentiated” along with Waters, since they like all Reformed theologians draw a distinction between the decretally elect and decretally non-elect people who are in the covenant. But this is really a differentiation among the people in the covenant, not a differentiation of the “modes” of being in the covenant.

Again we must come up for air and ask, how is this a problem for the FV writers as far as their Reformed orthodox credentials are concerned? What is the problem with this view? Waters has not offered his criticisms yet, but it is important to see before he does so what a burden he will be carrying. Nothing that has been said so far by FV advocates seems to be incompatible with Reformed theology. Recognizing this, we are armed and ready to evaluate Waters’ actual arguments against FV theology.

Now Waters turns to criticizing the FV doctrine of the covenant of grace. (27m05s – 29m25s)

Waters criticizes the FV idea of an “undifferentiated” covenant because he says it fails to do justice to the way that “outward” covenant members are in relationship to God. Certainly regenerate covenant members relate to God in a “vital” way, but not outward covenant members.

A “second problem” [second? Isn’t this the same criticism?] is a failure to distinguish membership in the covenant of grace in an “inward” and “outward” sense. We have seen that that distinction is Biblical and Confessional, Waters says,but the FV proponents don’t give us this distinction. Yes, they acknowledge elect and non-elect people, but they say that this is to be said or affirmed “acc. to the decree” but we are not to speak this way in the church. You and I think and talk to one other in terms of what is said in the covenant. This is a problem with FV folks.

(view interaction)

Given what we have already learned about FV theology, we see right away that his criticism doesn’t work. This is good, and is a sign that this guide is helping you, dear Reader, to make sense of these things. Let’s rehearse the problems as a confidence-building exercise.

First of all, notice that Waters is now taking “inward” and “outward” to be both the Biblically- and Confessionally-established ways of describing the different people in the covenant of grace. But we pointed out at the very beginning that this is a move Waters made without warrant when he quoted WLC 31 and WLC 166. Waters simply ‘slipped’ from the Confession’s teaching in those passages that there are both decretally elect and decretally non-elect people in the covenant to a further claim that these two groups are in the covenant “in different ways.” As we saw at the time, Waters never established this further view, he simply asserted it. We mentioned then that this ambiguity would play into his later arguments, and now we see it doing just that. For Waters now wants to fault FV proponents for not affirming a distinction which he himself has not proven to be correct. He only thinks he has proven it, because he cited WLC 31 and 166, but those portions of the Confession don’t teach that ECMs and NECMs are in the covenant in different ways; they only teach that there are indeed both decretally-elect and decretally-non-elect people in the covenant. These two claims are not the same; the “outward/inward” way of speaking which Waters faults the FV proponents for rejecting is something which Waters himself hasn’t yet established.

Also, let us keep in mind that FV proponents might very well affirm using the “inward/outward” language when talking about the people in the covenant. This might not be the language most of them would prefer, but they might use it. An FV proponent might say, for instance, that a NECM is only “outwardly” saved, or only “externally” believes in Christ. They might talk about something on the “inside” of the ECM that is not there for the NECM. But this is different than talking about being “outwardly” or “inwardly” in the covenant of grace. The covenant is an “objective” thing, participated in really and truly by all members. But those members themselves have some pretty serious differences going on “inside” of them, if we want to speak that way. (Again, there may be other ways to speak which FV people would prefer, but this way is okay as far as it goes.) A rejection of differentiation “in the covenant” is not a rejection of differentiation “among the people who are in the covenant.”

(Again, maybe this seems like an argument over semantics. But remember who it is that is trying to defrock fellow ministers over such arguments. It is not FV advocates who want to exclude from ministry those who do not define these words in just such-and-such a way.)

An argument of identical form may be advanced against Waters’ complaints about FV advocates speaking of NECMs as having a “vital” union with Christ, or a “vital” membership in the covenant. We have already seen that there is no a priori reason to think that “vital” is an inappropriate way to speak of the union that all people who are in covenant with God, even those who are not decretally elect, enjoy. Here Waters has done even less background work, though, as he didn’t provide any Confessional or Biblical passages in support of his rejection of this “vital” language. With the question of being in the covenant in different ways, he at least provided some Confessional citations which he then misinterpreted. Here he has offered nothing but assertion: saying that NECMs have a “vital” membership in the covenant of grace is inappropriate. No evidence for this claim has been offered.

Finally, there is something very peculiar about what Waters said concerning “according to the decree” vs. “in the covenant.” This will play heavily into his discussion of election in the next section of the talk. Waters faults FV thinkers for the fact that, while they acknowledge the distinction between decretally elect and decretally non-elect people in the covenant, they also say that “we are not to speak this way in the church. You and I think and talk to one other in terms of what is said in the covenant.” Waters sees a problem with this, apparently, but how is it substantively any different from claims he made during his discussion of the “judgment of charity”, in which he said that Scripture “speaks to people according to what they profess to be”? This would be most perplexing, if left to stand on its own. How is Waters not now criticizing FVers for making a very similar claim to one he made earlier? Is it only acceptable for anti-FVers to speak this way about all who profess to follow Christ, but not FVers?

II. Election (29m25s- 38m45s)

Waters now moves on from his discussion of the covenant of grace to discuss the doctrine of election more specifically. The format of discussion is the same here: he first lays out the Confessional view by quoting the Westminster Standards and then turns to the FV viewpoint.

He cites WCF chapter 3 on election. The highlights are that the Reformed doctrine of election posits a “finite and unchangeable number of people, elect from eternity…So clearly one can’t be elect then reprobate, then elect again.” So election can’t be lost. The other highlight is that election is done entirely out of God’s free grace, without regard to anything in the creature.

(view interaction)

This latter highlight is one of the primary things distinguishing Reformed theology from Arminianism. Many Arminians believe that God predestines from the foundation of the world, but that He does so based on some quality in the person. So God “looks down the corridors of time”, sees that Billy will believe, and elects Billy because of that belief. This is clearly anti-Reformed.

The Confession is clearly describing decretal election here. God has decreed from the foundation of the world to predestine a finite and unchangeable number of people to go to Heaven when they die. This predestined status cannot be lost by these decretally elect people; they all will indeed go to Heaven and cannot do anything else. Further, it is undeniably true that God predestined these people only out of His good grace for His own inscrutable reasons, without regard to anything in the people themselves. Everyone who is Reformed affirms this, whether FV or anti-FV.

The question is whether or not we can also speak of a “weaker” kind of election, an election unto membership in the covenant of grace. On their view everyone in the covenant has been predestined by God to be in the covenant (and we call these the covenantally elect ), and some within this covenant have also been predestined to go to Heaven when they die (and we call these the decretally elect). Two different predestinating decrees by God concerning two different groups of people being predestined to two different ends. Is it not obvious that these are not contradictory or incompatible in any way?

As “hard” Calvinists (and the Confession requires a “hard” position) concerning God’s sovereignty, we believe that God ordains everything that comes to pass. Thus, if we really wanted to, we could, in a manner of speaking, refer to all of the things God ordains as “elections.” So, God elected untold millions of dogs to live their earthly lives in U.S. territory, and He further elected my dog to be a part of my household during his earthly life. Do these two decrees somehow “contradict” each other? Of course not!

Finally, concerning the two “highlights” of decretal election mentioned by Waters above, we could also apply these to covenantal election as well. God’s decree to elect a whole bunch of people into the covenant of grace is irresistible, just like all the other of God’s sovereign decrees. If God wants Bob to be a member of the covenant of grace from 1997 to 2021, then Bob will be a member of the covenant of grace from 1997 to 2021. (We can defer discussion of the “unconditionality” of covenantal election until a bit later.)

Now Waters turns to explaining the FV view of election. “FV proponents will tell us that they accept and embrace without reservation the Confessional doctrine of election that we’ve just surveyed. They will go on to say that while the Scripture teaches that doctrine, the Scripture prefers to speak in another way of election. It speaks of an election not predominantly according to the decree, but according to the covenant. And so FV proponents offer us what is called a doctrine of covenantal election.”

(view interaction)

Kudos to Waters for getting this right. This is indeed what FV proponents say, as we have seen. The questions are, why does Waters think this is incorrect, and even further why does he think it is outside the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy? Let’s see what he says.

He quotes Lusk (“we must look at special/individual election through the eyes of general/corporate election”, “Paul is treating the generally or corporately elect, as specially elect, until or unless they prove otherwise,” “corporate election is the context in which special election is worked out,” “there is an election within an election, but for pastoral purposes the two can and must be collapsed into one another,” etc.). This underlined quote is key for Waters. (also quotes, “In theory, we recognize that there is election acc. to the decree and election acc. to the covenant, but in practice the two are one and the same” [On the audio it is unclear whether Waters is quoting Lusk here, or giving his own summation of Lusk’s position]) What does this mean? FVers say we can move from a state of election, to reprobation, to election again. Quotes Barach (Israel was God’s people, later wasn’t his people, later is promised to be chosen again, etc.)

So, this doctrine of covenantal election is conditional in nature. It’s through obedience or disobedience that you move from election to reprobation (or vice versa).

The reason covenantal election is so objectionable is because it is “indistinguishable” from how Arminians would speak of it. Yes, there’s an acknowledgment of the existence of decretal election in FV teachings, but there is no place for it, no discussion of it along the lines of [the discussion they give to] covenantal election. So this makes covenantal election, on this point, semi-Arminian or Arminian.

(view interaction)

There are many problems with this argument. First of all, as we pointed out at the end of the previous section, Waters himself explains the “judgment of charity” as a principle laid down by Scripture whereby we are supposed to “speak to people according to what they profess to be.” Now Lusk says that as a matter of “pastoral practice,” we must view decretal election through the eyes of covenantal election. We do not know who in our congregation is decretally elect or not, but we do know who is covenantally elect. So we simply speak to all who are covenantally elect as though they are the elect of God. Since the Church is the ordinary means of salvation, as the Confession clearly says, it makes sense that we should encourage all who are members of the covenant of grace as though they are also decretally elect, until they give us reason to think otherwise. Isn’t this exactly what Waters has advocated as the “judgment of charity”? It is truly bizarre the way he tries to fault Lusk and Barach here. Lusk does not say that the two kinds of election collapse into one another, full stop. He says that they do so “in practice”, “pastorally”, etc. That is an important qualification, yet Waters treats it as damning evidence. And all the while claiming himself that it is legitimate to “speak to people according to what they profess to be” because we don’t have windows into men’s hearts. Lusk and Barach are saying essentially the same thing, though not in connection with interpreting passages like Ephesians 1 or I Corinthians 1 (these were the passages that led Waters to present “the judgement of charity”). Waters’ argument here is a non-starter.

Second of all, there are two different ways to read Waters’ argument that the FV view of covenantal election is indistinguishable from the Arminian view of election, and neither are workable arguments. Given that FV proponents clearly claim to believe in both decretal and covenantal election, Waters’ argument is either that:

A. FVers go wrong simply for positing a covenantal election, because this kind of election is similar to Arminian election, or

B. FVers go wrong because, even though they say they believe in both kinds of election, they really don’t. The only election they really believe in is the covenantal kind, and if all you believe in is a covenantal election, then you are basically an Arminian.

In (A), Waters is simply saying that anyone who holds to covenantal election is non-Reformed, even if they hold to decretal election as well. The alleged similarity between covenantal election and “Arminian” election is enough to make covenantal election a non-Reformed doctrine, even though it is consistent with decretal election. Taking his words at face value, this seems to be what Waters is arguing; notice that he says gives us “the reason covenantal election is so objectionable.” It sounds, in other words, like Waters is criticizing covenantal election per se. It’s hard to imagine that this is what Waters is arguing, though, since it would obviously be absurd. Given that the two kinds of election are compatible (as we’ve seen already), what does it matter if the one kind of election looks a lot like Armininan views of election? Arminians deny decretal election altogether (i.e., they deny that there are any people who have been predestined by God, out of pure grace and based on nothing within themselves, to go to Heaven when they die). That’s the problem with the Arminian view of election from a Reformed perspective, and FV advocates don’t share this Arminian view. The fact that one kind of election which FVers believe in is “conditional” (and see below for more disucssion of what this means) doesn’t mean that the FV doctrine of election is Arminian. The FV “doctrine of election” is a doctrine of two kinds of election, covenantal and decretal. The decretal is the standard Calvinistic kind of election, while the covenantal is an election into the covenant of grace (which does not guarantee you go to Heaven, and can in fact be lost through unbelief). This is not Arminianism in any way, shape, or form, and saying that it is “indistinguishable” from Arminianism is absurd.

So perhaps Waters is arguing (B) since it would be absurd for him to argue (A). But he offers no argument that FVers in fact only believe in a covenantal election. We have already looked at his argument that they “collapse” the two elections together, but as we saw they are clear to say that this collapse only occurs for the sake of “pastoral practice.” In practice, we cannot see who is elect and who is not; we can only see who is in the covenant of grace and who is not. Waters and other critics of FV want to say that we therefore must make a “judgment of charity,” speaking of everyone in the covenant as though they are decretally elect even though we know they aren’t. The FV wants to say that we speak to everyone in the covenant of grace as though they are covenantally elect, because they really are elect in that sense. If Waters honestly wants to press his argument that FV proponents collapse the two kinds of election so that all that really exists is covenantal election, then he would have to apply the same reasoning to himself. Waters has offered no argument that the FV position here is doing anything inappropriate or out-of-accord with Reformed orthodoxy.

Third of all, Waters claims that FV proponents do not have any “place” in their system for decretal election, despite their claims to believe in it. They do not, as he says, give it the same kind of discussion that they give to covenantal election. We might suggest that perhaps this is due to the fact that their belief in covenantal election is the more controversial, so we should expect them to spend more time discussing it than the decretal election which all Reformed people already affirm. We might also suggest that this is just a bad way to argue, in principle: because your system of thought does not explicitly derive a certain doctrine, you must not believe that doctrine. This is a bad way to argue because perhaps the doctrine in question is simply one of the “axioms” of the “system of thought.” Perhaps FV thinkers take decretal election for granted to such an extent that it does not even seem worthy of being “proven” or “derived.” Perhaps they do not spend much time discussing the ins and outs of decretal election because the doctrine is already so central for them.

What if we were to accuse Waters of not talking enough about this or that doctrine? Perhaps his insistence on the imputation of the active obedience of Christ “seems to undermine” his belief in the importance of the Cross. At the very least, we might say, the Cross has no “place” in his system, even if he does believe it. This is not a proper way to argue, period.

Finally, Waters seems particularly bothered by the idea that a person could be elect, then reprobate, then elect again, even if it is only a covenantal election that we are talking about. But what is the problem here? Perhaps the hang-up is that when we think about decretal election, we rightly recognize that a person cannot go from being decretally elect to decretally reprobate. This is because it is part of decretal election that God has decreed this person to persevere and go to Heaven. In other words, decretal election includes within its decree the final end of the person. But this is a difference between the two types of election, as covenantal election includes no decree of the person’s final end. The decree involved in covenantal election only decrees that a person be in the covenant for some amount of time. Such a person might end up going to two very different final ends. Which of these final ends a person experiences depends on something besides the decree of their covenantal election, and so we can say in this sense that covenantal election is “conditional.” But this is not true of decretal election, which includes a decree concerning the person’s final end.

Further, it isn’t really right to say that a person can move from being covenantally elect to being covenantally reprobate. Since covenantal election simply means that a person is predestined to be in the covenant for a time, falling out of the covenant doesn’t spoil this. A person who has fallen away from the covenant is still covenantally elect, since he was in the covenant for a time. He is also covenantally reprobate, if by this we mean that he was predestined to be out of the covenant for a time. But since final ends are not in view here, there is nothing even ostensibly wrong with saying that a person can be both covenantally elect and covenantally reprobate. In fact, all decretally non-elect covenant members will be like this. What’s the problem?

Waters further criticizes Barach’s attempt to show a parallel between Old Testament and New Testament usages of “election.” He says that, while the Bible does speak of Israel as being “elect” in the Old Testament, we would say it is not in the sense that Barach is speaking of. In the New Testament, Barach uses a doubtful interpretation of a single verse, which is not enough to ground a doctrine. All Barach has shown is that the OT people of God are the same as the NT people of God; he has not show than OT election is the same as NT election.

(view interaction)

First, Barach’s argument was built on far more than “a doubtful interpretation of a single verse.” Nobody can fairly expect Waters to quote Barach’s full writings on this during a live lecture, but he has to do more than simply claim that Barach bases his argument on “a single verse,” as though what Waters took the time to quote exhausts Barach’s argumentation.

Second, even if Barach’s arguments from Scripture are wrong, how does any of this amount to a disagreement over Reformed orthodoxy? Consider:

A. Barach thinks that there are places where the NT speaks of a covenantal election, just as the OT often speaks of a covenantal election. Waters wants to say that he misreads these passages. Okay, for the sake of argument let’s grant Waters’ claim here. But how does Barach’s belief in a “covenantal election” amount to a denial of Biblical or confessional doctrine? We’ve already seen that covenantal election and decretal election are not incompatible, Waters’ shaky arguments notwithstanding.

B. In any case, though, can’t Barach’s basic point be derived from the good ol’ “good and necessary consequence?” We’ve already seen that the Confession teaches that there is a covenant of grace which includes both decretally elect and decretally non-elect people. Waters agrees with this much. Further, we know that, Biblically-speaking, at least in the Old Testament the ideas of being “in covenant” with God and of being "elect" are strongly connected. (And the Old Testament is Scripture, after all, and we Calvinists do tend to emphasize continuity between the covenants, even in the absence of any particular New Testament prooftexts.) Finally, we know as Calvinists that God ordains everything that comes to pass. So, is it not a perfectly legitimate inference, drawn by good and necessary consequence, to say that God ordains (i.e. “elects”) people into the covenant of grace. Whether the New Testament ever explicitly uses “elect” in a covenantal sense or not, we know the word has a legitimate covenantal usage in the Old Testament. Further, we could use “elect” however we wanted so long as we are clear that we aren’t using it in the traditional Confessional way. Words evolve all the time. Since God ordains everything, and there is a covenant of grace with certain people in it, then God must have ordained who is in the covenant of grace. Why not call this a “covenantal election?” Even if you are wary of using the word “election” here, what is the “big deal” as far as Reformed orthodoxy is concerned? Waters offers no answers here; in fact it isn’t clear that this line of argument has even occurred to him, which is a sure sign that he still isn’t properly representing the position and arguments of FV proponents.

III. Assurance (38m45s-51m30s)

Waters now transitions into the final part of his talk, on the subject of assurance. The Confession teaches that we can have assurance that we are decretally elect. How? There is a threefold foundation of assurance in the Confession, according to Waters. First, there is faith in God’s promises. Second, there is the Spirit enabling people to discern in themselves certain “graces” that accompany decretal election. Finally, the Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are a child of God.

The key here, according to Waters, is that the we can have an “indispensably inward dimension to gaining [assurance].” (41m10s) This assurance is also infallible, but not “of the essence of faith.” (In other words, it is not necessary to have this assurance in order to be saved.)

(43m00s-51m30s)

“The FV will often criticize what it sees to be the practice of assurance in the Reformed church today.” This is a two-fold criticism: one, assurance can lead to presumption (I’m elect, so I can do whatever I want); two, the common Reformed practice of assurance can lead to despair and self-doubt (nobody can ever get there; morbid introspectionism; etc.)

(view interaction)

This is a fair description of the FV position, so again kudos to Waters for that.

Waters says that these are important and real concerns for Reformed pastors, and that any good theology must deal adequately with these concerns. However, the FV position is problematic and a source of concern in its own right.

Waters quotes Wilkins (“in regard to our assurance we are pointed away from ourselves, and pointed to Christ the only ground of our assurance”, etc.) as saying that (a) assurance is grounded in water baptism, and that (b) assurance is not grounded in self-examination. If you are going to know that you are a true child of God, look to your election, to your covenantal membership, and look to your baptism.

The error here, acc. to Waters, is that Wilkins denies that we can look “to ourselves” to find assurance. There is a legitimate usage of “inward” means of assurance which Wilkins (presumably along with other FV proponents) neglects.

(view interaction)

The Confession does not define “inward graces” as “things that exist only in your heart, and which can only be seen by looking at your heart apart from the outward fruits of life that your heart produces.” That is an assumption that Waters is loading into the Confession’s words at this point.

Part of the problem here is that Waters is not critiquing Wilkins’ most recent revisions and clarifications of his position. We mentioned much earlier that it is okay to criticize someone for being unclear, but that you must then allow them to revise and qualify their views. It would be a shame if someone was to be judged poorly forever simply because he was unclear at one time (that is, granting that he really was unclear at the earlier time, which is not necessarily something Wilkins has to grant). It is unfortunate, then, that Waters does not make any mention of Wilkins’ recent written answers to his presbytery (the Louisiana Presbytery), in which he very carefully qualifies and elucidates his earlier comments on assurance.
"1. Do you believe that your teaching on assurance contradicts WCF 18-2? If so, how?

No, I do not believe my teaching contradicts WCF 18.2. In the quote from my article in The Federal Vision (p. 67; note 15 on p. 69), I am not denying the possibility of assurance or “infallible assurance” to which the Confession alludes. Rather, I am trying to show the appropriate grounds of such assurance and the appropriate way to attain it. We do not attain assurance by trying to discern the sincerity of our faith or repentance through introspection of our hearts and examination of our motives, affections, or feelings. Our hearts are deceitful and, thus, our assurance cannot be grounded upon what we feel or think we discern in the recesses of our souls. Our assurance is founded on Christ Himself and His work and the promises of God revealed in the Scriptures as well as the visible fruit of the Spirit’s work in our lives.

Note how the Confession teaches that one obtains “infallible” assurance (WCF 18.1). Certain assurance can be obtained only by those who “truly believe” [i.e., have saving faith, WCF 14] and sincere love for the Lord Jesus, and who endeavor “to walk in all good conscience before him” [i.e., who repent, believe, and obey] — these may be assured that they are in a “state of grace” and rejoice in the hope of God’s glory. Thus, assurance is grounded upon: believing the promises of God; the “inward evidence” of those graces (which is always manifested outwardly and according to the textual proofs include obedience to God’s commandments; love of the brethren; honest conduct; and godliness); and the witness of the Spirit (Who confirms our faith through the fruit of holiness He produces in our lives)…..

The promises of God are also sealed and confirmed by the sacraments (WCF 27.1 they serve “to confirm our interest in Christ”). Baptism means that I have been joined to Christ covenantally, united to His body by the Spirit (I Cor. 12); it means that I have put on Christ Jesus (Gal. 3). All the promises of God are delivered to me and are properly and truly mine. There is no reason to doubt these promises if I am clinging to Christ by faith. The very fact that baptism is a “sign” and a “seal” confirms my standing and I am to rejoice in the grace of God given to me in Christ Jesus. Assurance must not be sought apart from the ordained signs and seals of God’s mercy and grace."
So, Wilkins does not deny that there are legitimate “inward” sources of assurance of one’s decretal election. But he also wants to argue that “inward” doesn’t mean here that one is looking to something within oneself which has no outward expression. Inward graces are not only inward. The “real faith” we are looking for, the “real repentance,” etc., are things that will be manifest in our lives. We may call saving faith an “inward” reality, but it is also an outward reality, and the Spirit points us outward to see the fruits of this saving faith. So Wilkins affirms that we can have an infallible assurance that we are decretally elect, and that this infallible assurance is found through the Holy Spirit’s confirming with us that we possess certain “internal” graces. What he denies is that these “internal” graces are only internal, so that the only way to see them is to somehow look into your heart independently of the fruits it produces. Again, this is not what the Confession says, and Waters is doing eisegesis at this point.

In addition to this infallible assurance spoken of in WCF chapter 18, Wilkins also wants to put forth other external or “objective” sources of assurance, such as our covenantal election and the sacraments. But this doesn’t mean that Wilkins is “grounding” assurance in baptism, only that it is a means of assurance. The only ground of assurance is Christ himself, which Wilkins says explicitly in the quote that Waters reads during the lecture. (This was one of the most egregious misrepresentations of the entire conference.)

There is nothing wrong with pointing to our covenantal election as a means of assurance for our decretal election. As Calvin said, Christ is the mirror of our election, and the way to see our own election is to look constantly to Him. But Calvin meant by this that we must look to Christ where He has promised to be found, which is in the Church through the Word and sacraments . Our presence in the covenant of grace and our participation in its “objective” practices like baptism and the Lord’s Supper are therefore mirrors in which we may look to Christ to see our own decretal election. Because we have all these things, because we are in the covenant of grace, we know that God has promised to save us. This is most assuring. (The first Reformed theologian who enabled me to see this sacramental connection to assurance was Michael Horton. Many thanks to him!)

Both Waters and Wilkins believe that there are means of assurance, by which the Spirit enables us to see that we are truly connected to Christ. The disagreement is over what these means are. Wilkins (in his more recent and revised statements) clearly affirms both the “inward” means spoken of in WCF 18, though he also wants to insist that these “inward” realities have external manifestations, as well as the purely “outward” means of baptism, covenant membership, etc.

Waters seems to be making two claims in response to Wilkins’ view. 1. He denies that things like baptism and covenantal membership can be sources of assurance at all (thus, he says that “baptism can assure no one of salvation;” more on that argument anon.) 2. He presents Wilkins as denying any internal means of assurance at all, but we have now seen that this is a misrepresentation.

As to (1), let’s look at Waters’ argument.

Waters says that “baptism can assure no one of salvation.” (49m00s – 50m30s) Waters says this because there is nothing in baptism that sets one person apart from another. Think of the people like (Ishmael or) Simon Magus in the Scriptures who are (circumcized or) baptized but who cannot thereby have assurance of their decretal election. Simon “could not be assured of what he didn’t have.” Further, “self-examination, as the Bible teaches, as our Standards rightly say, is a way to reach assurance. That is, by a Spirit-enabled self-examination, I can find out if I have the true marks of a child of God or if I don’t. I can compare myself not against myself but against the Bible and its teaching and learn who I am. But you see baptism can’t do that.”

(view interaction)

This argument simply begs the question by assuming the very thing Waters needs to prove. Granting that looking to one's baptism is not the same thing as "comparing ourself against the Bible’s teachings," who says that the latter is the only way to be assured? (Certainly not the Confession, nor the very Bible whose teachings we are supposed to compare ourselves against!) If God has promised to save all who are baptized who cling to their baptism in faith, then this can be assuring can it not? When a person comes to their pastor worried that they are a decretal reprobate, having examined themselves and come up empty (there are certain kinds of consciences which can never satisfy themselves), suppose their pastor tells them something like the following:

“You have the promises of God because you have been elected into the covenant, you have been set apart from the world through baptism, you have sat under the ministry of the Word, and you have partaken with the rest of the covenant community in the Lord’s Supper. These things are all “out there”, “objectively” undeniable. And these things are always accompanied by the promises of God. God told you at your baptism that He would save you, sinner, so believe that He can do what He says He can do. The only way to “lose” this promise (i.e., the only way to show yourself to be decretally reprobate) is to not believe, to stop clinging to the promises by faith. Are you planning on doing that any time soon? Or is there some scandalous sin for which you remain unrepentant? Are you running off to secret Klan rallies that I don’t know about? No? Then rejoice and be relieved: God has promised to save you and He will.”

This is what it means to find assurance in one’s baptism. To recognize that Christ has promised to be with His people when they make use of the means of grace He has established. These means are “objective” (the preaching of the Word, the sacraments), you are “under” them or you are not. If you are under them, then Christ has promised to be with you. If this promise doesn’t come to fruition, it’s because you didn’t believe. (And, of course, whether you believe or don’t believe is a part of God’s decretal election.) So believe, dangit!

Some might worry that this is not “real” assurance, because the person can’t know that they will always believe. Maybe I’ll lose my faith twenty years from now, how can I know? Thus this seems like “Arminian” assurance, where you can only know that you are presently under the grace of God but you cannot know that you will always be so. It’s okay to draw an analogy with Arminian assurance here, so long as we also add a couple further responses:

1. If a person is unable to find assurance through the means of self-examination described by the Confession (and the Confession only says that this sort of assurance is possible; it does not say that everyone will have it), then this might be the best kind of assurance we can hope for. It’s not the only kind of assurance that FV advocates are promoting. (Again, unless one simply refuses to read FV advocates in their more clear and qualified statements.)

2. This is no shabby assurance, anyway. Even under the typical Calvinist view of assurance, there are many people who worry that they are not really elect, that all their previous experience in the Christian faith was just self-deception (after all, the heart is wicked in all things, and if I am still an unregenerate depraved sinner who is decretally non-elect then I shouldn’t be surprised if my heart deceives me into thinking I am regenerate and living a vibrant Christian life…). Believing that you are indeed connected to Christ in some sense now can provide a wonderful foundation of assurance for such a person. If I am connected now, then why not think that I will continue to be? As opposed to the more traditional Calvinist view, which is that you either always are connected to Christ (after regeneration) or you never are, being able to “hang my hat” on a connection now can be comforting.

There is no “magic bullet” for looking at assurance so that every single kind of personality will be assured. Every theology has its strengths and its pitfalls. The FV is about holding to the traditional Calvinist doctrine of election (which is assuring to a certain kind of person), and also supplements this by finding another source of assurance in the objective covenantal promises of God (which is assuring to another kind of person). Since the two forms of election, and hence assurance, are not incompatible with one another, this shouldn’t be a problem.

When the lecture was over, I submitted two questions for the Q and A period.

Question 1: Dr. Waters, you yourself say that the “judgment of charity” means that we are to speak to people “according to their profession” (and to their life which seems in conformity with that profession.” Isn’t this a “practical, pastoral” perspective that treats all covenant members like they are elect unto Heaven? But then you criticize Lusk and others for saying that “practically” they collapse covenantal election and decretal election into one and the same thing. But that qualifier—“practically”—is important, and it doesn’t seem you are being fair to Lusk here.

Question 2: Isn’t there a distinction between saying that “different people are in the covenant in different ways (i.e.—internally or externally)” and saying that “everyone in the covenant is in the covenant in the same way, but the Spirit unites these people to Christ differently?” In other words, FVers acknowledge a “qualitative” difference between elect and non-elect covenant members. Non-elect covenant members never really “get it” in the way the elect do; The Spirit doesn’t do the same work in the hearts of the non-elect covenant members as He does in elect covenant members; etc. But, these two kinds of people—while different—are both “in the same covenant.” The covenant is the same—the kinds of people in the covenant are different. In other words, the covenant is the same for elect and non-elect covenant members, but the blessings received by each from the covenant are different.

So much, then, for Waters’ first lecture. We will continue through the rest, but much less should need to be said now that we have laid the foundation.

The Woodruff Road Conference on the "Federal Vision"

2007-02-14T09:56:00.000-05:00

A Guide for the Perplexed

The controversy among conservative presbyterians concerning what is usually called “Federal Vision” theology shows no signs of abating any time in the near future. But as the debate rages on, it behaves like any other and winds through several layers of formulations on both sides. Terms, definitions, and doctrines are brought up, discussed, and put back down again to be brought up again later, each time ending up slightly different from the process. Furthermore, there are several people on each side of this discussion, and so for both critics and defenders of the Federal Vision there are now several different interpretations of which particular issues are the most important in this debate as well as how best to formulate those issues. In other words, it is not just that the defenders and critics of the Federal Vision are engaged in a disagreement, but that in a number of important ways the defenders and critics differ among themselves as well, at least in emphasis if not in substance.

As the two sides discuss these issues, then, it should not be surprising that FV’s defenders often find themselves having to argue in different ways against these different kinds of criticisms, and vice versa, and that this should quickly make the debate confusing for the layman who is not able to follow all these discussions closely in real time. It is hard to dispute, therefore, that some sort of layman’s guide to these issues would be helpful. Such a guide is what Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) (near Greenville, SC) has attempted to provide with its one-day conference on the FV (held February 10, 2007). Unfortunately, this conference fails to live up to its stated purpose and is thus incomplete as a layman’s guide to FV issues. Regardless of the intentions of the men involved, a layman might still be plenty perplexed coming out of this conference. Or, if he is not, this is probably because the talks contained some pretty serious misrepresentations of FV writers as well as errors in argumentation that were at times rather subtle, and the layman might not have picked up on these problems (being a layman and all). This conference goes wrong in the two worst ways a guide can go wrong, then. To some, it may make things even more confusing than they were before, and to others it may appear to be very ‘clear’ but is all the more dangerous because of that apparent clarity. A map that puts you in the wrong part of town without knowing it is not a good map, no matter how easy it is to read. To others it will probably not seem easy to read in the first place.

But, dear Layman, have no fear. A Virgil has arrived to show you around. This is not a “ground-up” presentation of these issues from an FV perspective, but is rather a play-by-play of the presentation the Woodruff Road Conference has already given. This is a useful way to organize this guide for a couple of reasons. By discussing the various issues as they are brought up at the Woodruff Road conference, we will be able to better understand the positions and arguments that have been made by various FV writers and thinkers. In addition to this, though, we will be able to gain a feel for the kinds of misrepresentations that often take place in this debate on the anti-FV side. This is an assertion often made by FV thinkers, that their critics have failed to properly represent their position before giving their criticism. This response has frustrated many anti-FVers to no end, but nonetheless it remains an appropriate response. Nearly five years into this discussion, and still FV advocates have a legitimate beef that their positions are not being fairly represented by the other side. Our method here will help make it clear that this is still the case.

One final comment by way of introduction to this debate, gentle Reader, is to point out that the two sides in this discussion do not have the same goals. This discussion is not like a battle in a war, where both sides are trying to sweep the other from the field. Rather, the FV debate represents a situation in which only one side is trying to sweep anyone anywhere. Those sympathetic to the “Federal Vision” theology are asking to be recognized as representing a real strain within the Reformed tradition, and to thus be allowed to remain within denominations such as the PCA on the basis of that representation. The critics of FV, on the other hand, are claiming that FV theology is contrary to the Reformed confessions in such a way as to represent a departure from legitimate Reformed theology, and that as such FV thinkers should be barred from ministry in the PCA. The importance of this difference cannot be over-stated, and it bears directly on the debate over FV by underscoring the different argumentative burdens of the two sides. When accusing another of departing from orthodoxy, it is the accuser who bears the more substantial burden of proof. What is called for here are clear demonstrations of places where the accused men go astray of traditional Reformed orthodoxy (particularly as represented in the Confessions). Such demonstrations require quotes of their writings, yes, but they also require more than this. The disputed writings must be interpreted properly—i.e. the way that the FV men are using words must be clearly understood. Otherwise this will all amount to a dispute over words, and to build accusations on such disputes is to engage in the sin of wrongly dividing the Church. It may be objected that the FV men themselves have been unclear at certain points of their writings. If this is so, then it is certainly legitimate to point out such a lack of clarity but at the same time it is also incumbent on the one who points it out to accept any revisions that might come in light of such criticisms. Nobody is perfectly clear in all of their writings, and if a man were required to be so in order to minister in a Reformed denomination then who could stand? Certainly not any FV thinker, as I’m sure they would all admit, but neither could the speakers from the Woodruff Road Conference stand up to such a standard of clarity. Their own lack of clarity, in fact, is present in abundance at the Conference in question.

With all these introductory matters cleared, then, let’s proceed into the labyrinth that is the contemporary dispute over the “Federal Vision,” using the Woodruff Road Conference as our foil as we go. This is meant to be useful as a primer to the Federal Vision theology, and so we will spend a good bit of time at the beginning explaining the Federal Vision perspective. As we make our way further into the conference lectures, we will no longer need to do this as much, and will instead be able to focus on what is wrong with the criticisms that are offered by the conference speakers. But even this activity will hopefully serve to further illuminate the Federal Vision perspective. As the reader gains a better understanding of the FV perspective, we will need to say less and less as time goes on.

Let's talk about spanking...

2007-02-09T11:32:00.000-05:00

I'm curious to hear what you people think about spanking, particularly those of you who might be against it.

The "literature" out there--parenting magazines, most non-religious popular parenting books--are pretty unified in saying that spanking is "always" wrong, never an appropriate way to discipline, etc. It "teaches violence", etc. Also, I've read several times over the argument that spanking isn't even all that effective for correcting behavior--things like "timeouts" which are all the rage now are supposedly more effective. According to somebody.

Psychologists are often consulted in these books and articles, and in many cases psychologists are even the authors of these books and articles. The "scientific" evidence is said to be overwhelming. But my concern is that the context in which a spanking occurs makes a big difference. I am not at all in favor, for instance, of "angry" spanking. But then again, parents shouldn't do any form of discipline when they're emotionally worked up. But in an environment that is clearly saturated with love, in which spanking along with any other methods of discipline are administered in a calm and judicious way, when rules are clear and the reason for the discipline is equally clear, etc., I am highly skeptical that spanking has these bad effects that we are often warned about. I myself know of plenty of people who grow up looking back almost fondly on spankings of their youth, even though they weren't pleasant at the time. (But what discipline is pleasant at the time?)

I don't even know if or how a psychological study could be done of the effects of spanking in "loving" families. Any help here, Russ?

Rick Phillips, Critics of FV, and the Fallacy of Equivocation

2007-02-07T11:26:00.000-05:00

Pastor Rick Phillips seems like a really nice guy, and I am sure that by God's grace he is doing an awful lot of good for the Kingdom in his ministry. This post is a criticism of some of the arguments that Phillips has made against the "Federal Vision" theology, particularly as represented by Phillips' fellow pastor in the PCA Steve Wilkins. But I don't want the topic of this post to cloud the fact that I really do not have anything against Pastor Phillips personally.

About a month ago Richard Phillips posted a fairly lenghty criticism of Steve Wilkins' written answers for the Louisiana Presbytery. (Wilkins has since been exonerated, for a second time, by Louisiana Presbytery.) I think Phillips' critcism of Wilkins illustrates a very fundamental problem, and it is a problem that is at the root of the frequent claims by Federal Vision thinkers that they are being misrepresented, that their critics are not attacking them at a place of substantive disagreement, etc. Phillips' critique of Wilkins, I think, fails in just these kinds of ways.

Jon Barlow put up an excellent response to Phillips (also about a month ago now). A major part of Barlow's response was that Phillips is commiting the fallacy of equivocation. Phillips mistakenly reads Wilkins' claims about the way certain words can be used outside of the Westminster Confession (like in the Scriptures, or in other theological discourse) as a denial of claims that the Westminster Confession makes using those same words. Barlow illustrates his criticism of Phillips on this point with a hypothetical juxtaposition of Confessional and Scriptural statements:

Consider an analogy. Suppose that the confession contains the following line:
”The doctrine of the Trinity is that Father Son and Holy Spirit are unconfused persons who are the divinity.”
and that the Bible contains this line:
”Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego made up a trinity of dissent in the empire.”
Could a pastor remain true to his confessional subscription and say that the word “trinity” is used in a broader way in scripture than in the confession? Surely all would agree that the pastor could. And yet Phillips’s claim is analogous—that Wilkins can’t really believe that the Confession has a biblical approach to “election” while also teaching that the Bible uses the word “elect” in a broader semantic way. Phillips confuses the sign with the thing signified, and he takes no note of the level of discourse in which the sign occurs.

Phillips, understandably, took issue with Barlow's claim that he was making such a fundamental mistake. He responded to Barlow on the Warfield list like this:

It simply amazes me that people might read my article and then state that all I am saying is that Wilkins is using terminology in different ways, therefore he should be disallowed. But my main -- and clearly stated point -- is that the unavoidable effect of Wilkins's teaching is to yield a different doctrine than that of the Confession. I do not and would not state that someone is contrary to the Confession simply and solely on the grounds of using terminology in different or broader ways. But in Wilkins's case, the result is a different doctrine when it comes to election, the church, and perseverance than that
taught in the Confession.

This is where my modest part of the story begins. I don't think anyone doubts that Phillips intends to prove a substantive contradiction between Wilkins and the Confession on various issues, and not a mere contradiction on the use of terminology. But the point that Barlow is making, and that I would reiterate, is that Phillips fails to do what he intends to do, and that a big part of the way he fails to do it is in committing the fallacy of equivocation. Of course Phillips knows equivocation is a fallacy, and of course he isn't deliberately doing it. Such fallacies are almost never committed deliberately. But the structure of his argument itself, the claims he makes and the actual textual evidence from Wilkins and the Confession that he brings in to support those claims, betray his argument's fallacious nature. His case is built on faulty logic, despite his best intentions.

It's possible, of course, that Barlow (as well as myself) still isn't "getting" what Phillips is trying to say. For the sake of peace and charity, let's be as true to his actual argument as we can. So I wrote Phillips an e-mail, asking him to clarify his argument for me. Specifically, I asked him to avoid the charge of equivocation by pointing out the clear place where Wilkins says something that amounts to a contradiction of the Confession, when all the theological jargon is properly defined in context. Here are the relevant portions of my e-mail to him:

"I appreciate that this is the argument you want to make. What I am having trouble understanding, though, is how the argument actually works....

I know that your argument, broadly stated, is that Wilkins' teaching (regardless of the particular ways that words are used) actually "yields" a different doctrine of election than the Confession. And I take it that you mean "contrary to" when you say "different."....

But my question is, WHERE does Wilkins' teaching actually add up to (or yield) something about election that is contrary to what the Confession says about election? I mean, we could start by putting the Confession's doctrine of election something like this:

WCE1: There is a group of people whom God has chosen from the beginning of all things to live with Him eternally in glory.

WCE2: This group described in WCE1 are the only people who will in fact live with God eternally in glory.

There's always more we can say, of course, but this seems a fair first approximation for the Reformed doctrine of election, doesn't it? Let's pretend that your argument is that Wilkins teaches something about election that is contrary to the Confession at one of these two points. This would mean that you think that Wilkins teaches something somewhere in his writings or other teachings that amounts to a denial of either WCE1 or WCE2. So, you think that Wilkins teaches one or both of the following:

WilkinsE1: There is not a group of people whom God has chosen from the beginning of all things to live with Him eternally in glory.

WilkinsE2: There are people outside the group described in WCE1 who will also live with God eternally in glory.

Now, if this is your argument, then WHERE is the place in Wilkins' teachings or writings where he ever says anything that contains the meaning of WilkinsE1 or WilkinsE2? I understand that we're not arguing about words here, so you don't have to find a place where Wilkins says one of those propositions exactly as I have written them above. All you have to show is a place where Wilkins says something, whatever words he happens to use, which means either WilkinsE1 or WilkinsE2 (or both). Where is this place in his teachings or writings?

Now, I don't want to put words in your mouth, and my propositions above are just first approximations. So you might want to re-word them in order to show how Wilkins disagrees with the Confessional doctrine of election. Feel free to do so! This will make your argument clearer to me (and maybe to others as well)."

Any of you who have read my conversations over on Lane Keister's blog over the last month might recognize the style of my questions to Phillips here. The point is not to force Phillips to use my propositions in the e-mail. Rather, I'm just trying to get Phillips to put his argument into a form that deals with the meaning of the words that Wilkins and the Confession use, to look more deeply than simply what words are in fact used.

Take something Wilkins says, show that it means X (interpreting all of Wilkins' words as he himself means them), and then take something the Confession says, and show it means "not X" (again, interpreting its words as they are intended). This is what Phillips, and any critic of FV on these issues, needs to do in order to show that Wilkins (or any other FV advocate) is out-of-bounds with the Confession while avoiding the fallacy of equivocation. This is what Phillips says he is trying to do, but I don't yet see where he has done it.

Phillips very kindly replied to my e-mail, and I reproduce the entirety of his response here (with his permission):

Phillips' Response to my E-mail

Dear Xon,

Nice to hear from you, and thank you for your kind words.

I also appreciate your question, and I hope my answer brings clarity at least as to where I am coming from. Let me just state it in a couple of points:

1. Part of my criticism of Steve Wilkins's Answers is the way in which he defends his teaching. When challenged as to his teaching of a conditional election, he answers that where the Bible teaches election, it teaches something other than the doctrine of the Confession. This was a point I labored to make in my Comments. While I certainly realize that there is not always a correspondence between a word in the Bible and the doctrine of that name in our confessions, here is a case where they in fact have the same point of reference. So his way of defending his teaching is to assert that the Bible teaches differently than does the WCF. This, I argue, is not to affirm the Confession.

2. Moreover, what TE Wilkens says about election is contrary to the Confession. All Bible-believers agree that God elects people. But the point of the doctrine of election is in answering two questions: when the Bible relates election to salvation, on what basis are we elected, and to what we are elected. Arminians answer that the basis of our election is conditional (the condition being foreseen faith), and we are elected to glory. The Westminster Standards answer that our election is unconditional, and we are elected to glory. Wilkens answers that our election is unconditional (at least I think this is his position), and we are elected to covenant membership and its privileges. So we might line them up:
 
    Position       Election on what basis?        Election to what?
    Arminian       Conditional                    To Glory
    WCF            Unconditional                  To Glory
    Wilkens        Unconditional                  To Covenant Membership
One thing this argues is that Wilkens's teaching is not Arminian; whatever else he is doing, he is not doing the same thing the Arminians are doing. For this reason, I do not believe that charges of Arminianism against Wilkens are either accurate or helpful. But the other thing this argues is that Wilkens teaches a doctrine of election that is different from that of the Westminster Standards. This is the point I am seeking to make.

3. Wilkens and his supporters argue that this is a both-and situation; what he is saying is true of church members who will not inherit glory, and what the Confession says of church members who will inherit glory is also true. I am arguing that it is in fact an either-or situation. When Paul wrote the Book of Ephesians, he spoke of election with reference either to those who are destined to glory only (the WCF position) or to all church members, regardless of their end. Surely we will all agree that in Eph. 1:4 (and similar passages), Paul is relating divine election to salvation, so Eph. 1:4 is not a use of election that belongs to a different doctrinal context. Either Paul is saying that those who are "saints" and "faithful in Christ" are chosen unto glory, or he is saying that church members are elected into the covenant, some to be saved through perseverance and others to be lost via apostasy. You cannot have it both ways, as if Eph. 1:4 is directed to two different kinds of readers. Is Eph. 1:4 is directed, as Wilkens says, to church members who enter into glory and to those who will not, or is written only with reference to true believers who can thus be assured of glory? This question yields two different doctrines of election. I maintain that the Westminster Standards teach one doctrine -- Paul is telling true believers that God elected them unto glory -- and Wilkens teaches another doctrine -- Paul is telling true and false believers that they are elected into covenant membership and privilege. We might go on to debate the correct interpretation of Eph. 1:4, but my point is that Wilkens' doctrine and the Confession's doctrine are fundamentally different. If one is correct, the other is in error, since Paul is making either one point or the other. As I indicated above, this is true not merely of Eph. 1:4, but of Paul's use of election throughout his epistles.

4. My Comments make this same point for the other doctrines -- especially perseverance and the visible/invisible church.

These are the reasons why I maintain that Wilkens is not merely using terminology in broad or flexible ways, but that his teaching yields doctrines contrary to the Westminster Standards. I hope this is helpful in fleshing out my point, whether you agree with it or not. Please feel free to publish this (only in its entirety), as this may be of benefit to others who have questions about the concerns I have registered.

Thanks again for your helpful questions, and may the Lord bless you.

Yours in Christ,

Rick Phillips

Several things can be said in response to this.

First, remember the claim that Barlow originally laid against Phillips' argument regarding these issues: Phillips is committing the fallacy of equivocation. Has he escaped that charge in this e-mail to me? I don't think he has, or rather if he does escape it then he still has a very serious problem because he presents no substantive case against Wilkins. The evidence he quotes from Wilkins and from the Confession does not show any contradiction. The only way to get such a contradiction is to equivocate (that's bad). The other option is to provide different evidence where Wilkins actually says something that is substantively contrary to the Confession, but Phillips hasn't done this either. Laying this out will require interaction with several different points that he makes, but keep this fundamental question in mind as we do so: Where's the beef?

That said, let's start with Point 1. Assuming that Phillips means something like "contrary to" when he says "other than" and "differently than," then this point doesn't add anything new to the discussion. It is just a restatement of Phillips' view that Wilkins' teachings end up "yielding" a contrary doctrine to the Confession. It's fine to re-state his position like this, but so far there is nothing new here.

The only thing worth quibbling with is when Phillips says "So his way of defending his teaching is to assert that the Bible teaches differently than does the WCF. This, I argue, is not to affirm the Confession." This is misleading, because Wilkins does not say that the Bible teaches differently than the Confession does. Rather, Wilkins is saying that the Bible uses certain words differently than the Confession does. This is an enormous difference, and hence why I am taking the time to quibble over it. Phillips probably didn't mean anything by choosing "teaches" instead of "uses words", but the difference in meaning is enormous.

I don't think anybody would disagree with Phillips that it would be subterfuge for a man to claim to affirm the Confession's teaching on a subject all the while claiming that the Bible teaches something contrary to it. Obviously, such a man should take an exception to the Confession on that point. But this is not what Wilkins says. Wilkins says, rather, that the Bible uses certain words--words like "elect"--in ways that are different than the Confession. A claim that a word can be used differently than the Confession uses it is not the same as a claim that what the Confession teaches when it uses that word is false.

Above I interpreted Phillips' usages of "other than" and "differently than" to mean "contrary to." We might want to quibble with that interpretation and say that Phillips needs to be more clear--after all, "different" is not necessarily the same as "contrary to", so Phillips should say clearly what he means. But in the context of Wilkins' actual argument this distinction is not even all that important. Since Wilkins is talking about the way a word like "elect" can be used in different contexts, it wouldn't even be a problem for his view if he did say that the Biblical usage was sometimes contrary to the Confessional usage. Some words do admit of contradictory definitions (think of "sanction", for instance), and this is not a problem at all. It just means that if two people use such a word, we have to be particularly careful to understand how each of them is using it in their respective utterances. For example, if Bob said "It's bad when government sanctions religion" and Tom said "It's good when government sanctions religion", these two men might be directly contradicting one another, or they might not, depending on what the word "sanctions" means in each of their utterances. If "sanction" has the same meaning in both statements, then clearly Bob and Tom are in contradiction. But if Bob uses "sanction" to mean "punish" while Tom uses it to mean "approve or support", then look at their statements again: there is now no contradiction!

The way words are used to carry meaning is what is important. The argument that Wilkins is making about the word "elect" (among other words) is that this word occurs in the Bible to refer to other groups of people besides those who are predestined to go to Heaven when they die. When we read the Confession, these people are the only people who are ever called "elect"--indeed, this is the Confession's definition of "elect." But in the Bible the word "elect" is used sometimes to talk about different kinds of people, people who are not predestined to go to Heaven when they die.

Now, if Wilkins actually denied that there are people who have been predestined to go to Heaven when they die, or if he said that some people go to Heaven even though they are not predestined to do so, then clearly this would be out of accord with the Confession. But for him to claim that the word "elect" can be used to talk about things besides predestination to Heaven is not to do anything like these. The only way to make Wilkins' teaching problematic here is to assume that he is defining "elect" as "predestined to go to Heaven". But this is not how Wilkins is using the term. And to assume that he is using it this way is a textbook case of the fallacy of equivocation.

On Point 2, Phillips' tries to acknowledge the way that Wilkins is using the word "elect." This is a promising move, but I think the chart needs a fourth column for WHO it is that is elected. It should look like this:


Position    Election on what Basis?  Election to what?    Election of whom?
Arminian    Conditional              Glory                People who go to Heaven
WCF         Unconditional            Glory                People who go to Heaven
Wilkins     Conditional              Covenant Membership  People in covenant w/ God

This fourth column may seem unnecessary, but at the very least it helps illustrate the way in which Wilkins' position is not contrary to the WCF position. Wilkins-election is about everyone in the visible church, while WCF-election is only about people who go to Heaven. There is no getting around this fact, folks--the two kinds of election are not logically contradictory. These are perfectly compatible "realities". A person can believe in both Wilkins-election and WCF-election. This is, in fact, what FV thinkers like Wilkins do. They affirm that God chooses some people to go to Heaven, and that these can be called the "elect." And they also affirm that God chooses a larger group of people (inclusive of the first) to be in covenant with Him during their earthly lifetime, and this larger group too can be called "elect." These are two different meanings of "elect," and as long as the distinction is made between the two usages to avoid confusion (and we just made the distinciont, it's easy to do, and Wilkins has made it repeatedly), then there is no problem. But notice that Phillips says right after giving this chart that, while Wilkins's position is not Arminianism, he nonetheless "teaches a doctrine of election that is different from that of the Westminster Standards. This is the point I am seeking to make." But what point is that? Yet again, "different" does not mean "contrary to." Is Phillips saying, based on the chart, that Wilkins-election is contrary to WCF-election? That's just clearly not the case.

Phillips needs to give some kind of an argument here that Wilkins-election is out of bounds with the Confession. It clearly is not incompatible with WCF-election in any logical sense. Perhaps Phillips thinks that it is out-of-bounds because the Confession teaches that it is false. This kind of argument would work if Phillips could pull it off--if the Confession teaches that there is no conditional election of all covenant members, then Wilkins would be out of bounds with the Confession for teaching that there is. (But notice the way in which Wilkins would be out-of-bounds here. He wouldn't be out-of-bounds for denying WCF-election, the second row of the chart. He would be out-of-bounds for denying the Confession's denial of the third row of the chart. These are different things.) This fits with what Phillips says here:

"I do not and would not state that someone is contrary to the Confession simply and solely on the grounds of using terminology in different or broader ways. But in Wilkins's case, the result is a different doctrine when it comes to election, the church, and perseverance than that taught in the Confession."

and it also fits with Phillips' creation of the chart here in his Point 2. He appears to be setting us up for an examination of Wilkins' actual position, to show how it is contrary to something the Confession actually says. WCF-election and Wilkins-election by themselves do not demonstrate this. We need some place where the Confession actually teaches that Wilkins-election is false. Perhaps this is what Phillips is going to do?

No, actually. Phillips hasn't even tried to show that the Confession denies Wilkins-election. Read through his original post to the Warfield list and through his e-mail response to me. It doesn't appear to even occur to him to try to offer this kind of argument, though I don't claim to be able to read his mind. Why not?

The key seems to lie in his Point 3. There he tries to spell out why we are faced with an "either-or" between Wilkins-election and WCF-election. Phillips reasons like this (with some emphasis and commentary added):

When Paul wrote the Book of Ephesians, he spoke of election with reference either to those who are destined to glory only (the WCF position) or to all church members, regardless of their end. Surely we will all agree that in Eph. 1:4 (and similar passages), Paul is relating divine election to salvation, so Eph. 1:4 is not a use of election that belongs to a different doctrinal context. [Actually, we don't all agree to this; Wilkins' interpretation of Eph. 1:4 is precisely that it is referring to Wilkins-election, not WCF-election. But Wilkins still believes in WCF-election; he just doesn't think it's what is being taught in Eph. 1:4.] Either Paul is saying that those who are "saints" and "faithful in Christ" are chosen unto glory, or he is saying that church members are elected into the covenant, some to be saved through perseverance and others to be lost via apostasy. You cannot have it both ways, as if Eph. 1:4 is directed to two different kinds of readers. [This seems right; every particular instance of "elect" has to mean one, or the other, or neither. No one occurrence of "elect" can refer to both Wilkins-election and WCF-election.] Is Eph. 1:4 is directed, as Wilkens says, to church members who enter into glory and to those who will not, or is written only with reference to true believers who can thus be assured of glory? This question yields two different doctrines of election. [Woah! Where did this come from?? Why does each possible usage of the word in Eph. 1:4, or anywhere else, yield a different doctrine of election? And, again, different as in different but still compatible, or different as in contrary to?] I maintain that the Westminster Standards teach one doctrine -- Paul is telling true believers that God elected them unto glory -- and Wilkens teaches another doctrine -- Paul is telling true and false believers that they are elected into covenant membership and privilege. [Westminster teaches on doctrine, which is true, and Wilkins claims that Eph. 1:4 is teaching a compatible doctrine, which is also true.] We might go on to debate the correct interpretation of Eph. 1:4, but my point is that Wilkens' doctrine and the Confession's doctrine are fundamentally different.[Again, how so? They are not different in such a way as to be opposed to one another; logically, they can both be true and Wilkins asserts that they are.] If one is correct, the other is in error, since Paul is making either one point or the other. [Yikes! This cannot be correct. Since Paul is using the word one way or another in one particular usage, then the word has to always have that meaning in every other usage? No way.] As I indicated above, this is true not merely of Eph. 1:4, but of Paul's use of election throughout his epistles.(emphasis added)

So, the argument seems to be that the word "elect" can only mean either WCF-election or Wilkins-election, it cannot mean both, because in Ephesians 1:4 (and other passages) it can only mean one or the other. So we are back to chastising Wilkins over the way a word supposedly has to be used, despite Phillips' earlier denial that this was his argument. I will gladly accept correction on this point if I'm missing what he's saying, but for the life of me I can't read the argument any other way as it is written. And the argument, as it is written, is a non-starter. Phillips is still trying to jump from the way Wilkins thinks a word can be used to a doctrine that Wilkins teaches contrary to the Confession. Phillips has provided no evidence for this leap. Where is the doctrine that Wilkins teaches which is contrary to the Confession? Where is the Confessional passage that says something contrary to Wilkins? Phillips gives us nothing other than an argument about what the word "elect" has to mean in Ephesians 1:4 and other passages. This does nothing to prove his point, even if he is correct in his interpretation.

Wilkins and Phillips disagree as to whether this or that passage teaches WCF-election or Wilkins-election. But this doesn't affect Wilkins' orthodoxy at all, because he still isn't teaching anything contrary to the Confession. Even if his interpretation of Eph 1:4 (or whatever other verse) is wrong, his interpretation doesn't put him at odds with the Confession. Wilkins teaches WCF-election and Wilkins-election. The Confession teaches WCF-election. Wilkins-election is not contrary to WCF-election. So there is no contradiction, and Wilkins can teach them both wihtout being contrary to the Confession. Whether or not Wilkins is actually correct to derive Wilkins-election from Eph. 1:4 is another matter. But it doesn't affect the orthodoxy of Wilkins' teaching either way. People might misread Scripture but but their misreading might still produce an orthodox belief.

This brings us back to the fallacy of equivocation. We've already seen that WCF-election and Wilkins-election are mutually compatible; they can both be true. Phillips wants to say that we are faced with an "either-or" here, but on what basis? Because Paul uses the word this or that way? But this is just to take the original problem with his argument from the Confession and slap it onto an argument from Scripture. It's fallacious in both cases. We have three different sources for the word "elect" in play here:

A. The way the Confession uses the word.
B. The way the Scriptures use the word.
C. The way Wilkins uses the word.

The question of where Wilkins gets his extra-Confessional usages of "elect" is not the issue here. He thinks they come from Scripture (B), and Phillips thinks they don't. But it doesn't matter as far as the question of Wilkins' orthodoxy is concerned, because that question only concerns whether the C usages of "elect" are compatible with the A usages of "elect." And we have seen that they are. If they are not compatible, then show how they are not compatible by quoting examples and showing that they don't line up. Phillips does not do this. Instead he claims that these different usages of the words "represent different doctrines of election." But this isn't right! Phillips never defends this bizarre claim, and the claim itself indicates that, still after all this, Phillips is equivocating on "elect" when he charges Wilkins with deviating from confessional Reformed orthodoxy. The only other interpretation available that I can see is that Phillips is simply claiming that Wilkins' teachings "yield" a contrary doctrine of election (among other things) to the Confession without actually providing any evidence that this is actually so. Either way, Phillips' criticism of Wilkins (so far) is a no-go.

An Aborted Debate Renewed

2007-01-29T15:04:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago I posted a debate between myself and Michael Metzler. This debate concerns a particular line of argumentation that Metzler has advanced against the character of Doug Wilson on his blog. Metzler has made several anti-Wilson arguments over the past year or so, but this particular one is something that he himself referred me to when I corresponded with him last March. Michael pointed me to this business with the "Letter Without Signatures"--particularly his fourth post in that series--as a key exhibit of the substantive case he thinks he is making against Wilson. He and I agreed to have a more formal back-and-forth on this post of his. Originally we only published opening statements, but in the last couple of weeks we have added some more rounds. The word limit was originally 300 words, but we have since bumped it up to 500 (So all rounds after the opening will contain 500-word responses). What follows is the first three rounds of this discussion.

----------------------------------

OPENINGS
Xon:

Brief prologue: I agree in substance with Wilson’s (aphoristic) “justice primer” series, particularly these three posts.

The following sins have already been confessed:

a. The CC committee included in its 2003 response to Morin’s “solemn charges” affidavit references to two illegitimate documents (the now-infamous 12/17/03 LWoS and another document).

b. The committee falsely accused Morin of hypocrisy, based on the illegitimate LWoS.

But in "The Letter Without Signatures, Part 4" (LWoS 4), you seem to argue that Wilson (and the CC Session) is guilty of sins beyond these, namely:

(1) He lied (by omission) in 2003 when the committee first used the LWoS to answer Morin’s charges, because he "knew" it was illegitimate then but didn’t correct the record. (2) Then he and the session dragged their feet for 4 months before they publically came clean. Have I missed any other alleged sins in that post?

My concern about Poohsthink is this: there is nothing in your post that actually confirms either of these 2 further sins. (1) Given Wilson’s own account that this was due to his faulty memory and lack of direct involvement with the committee, where is the evidence that your own well-cited reconstruction of events, taken in all it’s glory, is the correct one? Both “theories” fit the facts. Charity says we accept the explanation of the accused, doesn’t it? Even with (2), there are plenty of reasons why it might be appropriate, in a judicial setting, to proceed slowly in taking the illegitimate references down from the CC website and issuing a formal and public apology. Taking "as soon as" as a contradiction of this would be, frankly, nit-picky and hyper-judgmental.

Simply: what sins do you think Wilson and co. still need to confess? And what, exactly, is the evidence that these sins have been committed?

Michael:
Thank you, Xon. This is a criticism of Part 4 in our series of The Letter Without Signatures. Recall that as this series progressed we unpacked a number of implicit problems found in Part 4, which you do not address. Instead, you claim that Part 4 has not “confirmed” the statement:
“[Wilson] and the session dragged their feet for 4 months.”
But if Part 4 does not confirm precisely this, I do not understand what it could possibly confirm. Of course Part 4 “confirms” this statement! This statement is in fact an understatement. Over a period of literally months Wilson and Jones stubbornly refused to publicly acknowledge their on-going public falsehood even while a local church was repeatedly calling them to. Instead of acknowledging that they had been caught displaying falsehood, they rather used their own public falsehood to literally blackmail the other church into answering certain questions. Once they finally did publicly admit the falsehood, they still neglected to stop publicly displaying the falsehood for another period of months.
Wilson and Jones have not come to defend themselves about this because they have no defense. Regarding the evidence, you assert here what is clearly false. What you also fail to recognize is that Wilson said “as soon as” as his primary defense. His point was that he was blameless because they pulled the falsehood as soon as they knew of it. But this is precisely what they did not do, and precisely why they are not blameless. Instead of pulling it as soon as anything, they rather willfully left it up for many months while under protest by another local evangelical church! In other words, Wilson simply defended the outrageous use of the Letter Without Signatures with just another lie. You call concern over this “nit-picky and hyper-judgmental”?

ROUND 2
Xon:
I’ll happily consider all evidence offered, whether LWoS 4 or elsewhere, but I opened with LWoS 4 because that is our ‘official’ topic. I even asked you what further sins in LWoS 4 you think I am missing (even if implicit). You “up the ante” in your opening with words like “blackmail”, and by saying that Wilson’s own explanation (presumably 2/15/06) of his “lie” from 2003 was itself another lie. Perhaps these are two new unrepented-of sins to add to the list of allegations? But no evidence is offered.

Sticking (for now) with the allegations in my opening, what’s the evidence that Wilson “knew” the LWoS was bogus and that he deliberately allowed the CC committee to use a false document in 2003? You’ve offered nothing along these lines.
About the foot-dragging sin, I was unclear. Your post provides evidence (though I’d like to hear the other side of those E Free exchanges) that there was in fact a delay between finding out the LWoS was bogus and publicly acknowledging and apologizing for that fact. But it does not prove that this delay constitutes a sin. Unless you believe that such delays are always sinful?

One new thing not in my opening. Even if you “get” Wilson and co. on this sin of delay, why push such “lesser” matters of the law? In the midst of public charges and trying to answer those charges, Wilson and co. used some bad evidence (not necessary to their overall counter-argument). They eventually apologized to their accusers for it (How difficult!). But now you allege a further sin in when they apologized. Let love cover it.

Wilson wrote “as soon as” in a comment under his post, not in the “main defense” itself. Word choice in a blog comment? Again, let love cover it.

To sum up, then, what I’m looking for is:

(A) evidence of a sin for which Doug Wilson or the Christ Church Session have not yet repented, and preferably

(B) some reason for thinking that said sin relates to a “weightier matter of the law.”

Saying that Wilson and Jones “literally blackmailed” the E Free Church of Pullman into answering their questions is not the same as proving that they did so. Proving that \a period of months elapsed during the interaction between the two churches before Wilson and Jones took down the reference to the faulty evidence/ does not prove \a sin/, unless there is some argument that such delay always constitutes a sin. And, finally, returning to (1) from my opening, saying that Wilson “knew” the Letter was bogus in 2003 when the CC session referenced it and that he thus deliberately allowed faulty evidence to go forward is not the same as proving that he knew this and deliberately did this. Really, I don’t know how you could possibly prove these things, yet you said them. And these are the problems I see with the kind of evidence against Wilson you use on PoohsThink.

Michael:
I am thankful for Xon’s desire for a fair trial; but I am perplexed over Xon’s ignorance of the facts.

Xon asks:

What’s the evidence that Wilson “knew” the LWoS was bogus and that he deliberately allowed the CC committee to use a false document in 2003? You’ve offered nothing along these lines.

Wilson “knew” that the LWS bore no signatures because he wrote it and asked the CEF elders to sign it; Wilson then had the very memorable experience of having his request firmly denied. Despite his firsthand knowledge of the document’s illegitimacy, Wilson admitted it as the onlyevidence to rebut the testimony of a witness in a matter of public adjudication. Xon ignores Wilson’s own statement of these facts.

Xon continues,

About the foot-dragging sin . . . it does not prove that this delay constitutes a sin. Unless you believe that such delays are always sinful?

We are not debating what classifies as “sin.” But fitting our words to the facts is still important. The Christ Church elders’ four-month defiance of the E Free elders’ simple request for a signed copy of the Letter Without Signatures, which they made after Wilson and Jones privately conceded (to an E Free elder) the letter’s illegitimacy, is not “foot-dragging.” A better phrase for this stonewalling is “obstruction of justice.” Deliberately using a phony document is “common fraud,” and doing this in a matter of public adjudication is “corruption of justice.” Wilson claiming that he pulled the document “as soon as” he discovered that it was in fact used at all (!) is likely best called “lying.”
Xon states,

Wilson and co. used some bad evidence (not necessary to their overall counter-argument).

Not necessary to their overall counter-argument? The Christ Church session produced the Letter Without Signatures and bore unanimous witness that they saw signatures on it to contradict the testimony of an eyewitness who used two signed documents to buttress his sworn affidavit. The LWS was crucial to their case; without it they had nothing. Xon’s statement is false.

Xon says:

They eventually apologized to their accusers for it. . .

The Kirk elders accused a true witness of lying. They never apologized to an “accuser.” And, in fact, they never really “apologized;” they sought to further discredit him by implying he owed them an apology. Xon ignores these facts.
Please, Xon, stick with the facts.

ROUND 3

Xon:

I live in Georgia and have never set foot in Moscow, Idaho. I have never even asked for Christ Church’s side of this story concerning the timing of taking the Letter references down from their site. The point is that I don’t have to—your own evidence is insufficient, without even needing to hear anything from the “defense.”

You tell me to “stick to the facts”, but the only facts that you have presented regarding the LWoS is that some months passed before it was taken off the CC website in 2003. But what does this really amount to as far as showing Wilson to be a “bad dude” goes? Not much at all. There are any number of reasonable explanations that do not amount to sin for why such a length of time might have passed. But you choose to use words such as “stonewalling”, “deliberately,” and “obstruction of justice.” These words imply that you can prove the motives of Wilson and the Christ Church committee regarding how long it took to take down the Letter. Can you?

There are even less “facts” backing up your claim that Wilson “knowingly” used the bogus letter. How can you possibly know what the state of Wilson’s memory was in 2003 concerning events that transpired in 1993? You can’t, Michael, and thus you cannot prove this charge that he “knowingly” or “deliberately” did anything. This is not an “epistemological hangup” on my part. What if I accused you of deliberately misrepresenting prior events and refused your defense that you did it unknowingly out of a foggy memory after several years had passed? “No, Michael, you actually remembered everything, I know this.” This doesn’t fly as an argument against anyone. This is a perfect example of what I am objecting to about your site.

Finally, you claim that the LWoS was “crucial” to the CC Session’s case defending Wilson against Morin, but this just isn’t true. CC’s “case” can be thought of in two parts. (A) Morin’s charges against Wilson concerning the events of 1993 are without merit. (B) Morin himself admitted that he was in the wrong back in 1993. The LWoS was only meant to support (B). Using this Letter was wrong, and a “sin of haste”, and they have repented of it. Repenting of (B) does nothing to (A), though.

The CC Session response to Morin from 2003 is available with all references to the Letter redacted, and I encourage anyone reading this to consult it for themselves. There is still much substantive argumentation there in support of (A). I’d also encourage everyone to read Wilson’s own statement. I don’t know what Michael thinks I am ignoring that Wilson’s post reveals, but read it for yourselves.Wilson gives a reasonable explanation of what took place, and I don’t see how anyone not gifted with a direct revelation from God can claim to prove that Wilson is lying.

Michael:

Apparently, Xon has now familiarized himself with some of the primary documents related to the LWS fraud. But reading two Kirk statements hardly qualifies as a sufficient examination the body of evidence available on Dr. Morin’s website. Xon compounds his problem by parroting the Kirk’s spin, further demonstrating his own willingness to harm Dr. Morin’s good reputation.

Xon and the Kirk have changed their story so much that neither have any credibility. For example, in Xon’s first post he confidently affirmed:

The following sins have already been confessed:
a. The CC committee included in its 2003 response to Morin’s “solemn charges” affidavit references to two illegitimate documents (the now-infamous 12/17/03 LWoS and another document). b. The committee falsely accused Morin of hypocrisy, based on the illegitimate LWoS.

I am happy Xon agrees that this confession is required. To date, however, this confession has not taken place. What, then, does Xon do? He changed his story and now says the Kirk elders confessed that using the LWS was “wrong, and a ‘sin of haste.’”

Again: Twelve men bore unanimous witness that they saw four signatures on a demonstrably blank document and, as a rule, discrepancies like this tend to undermine credibility. These men slandered a true witness, which forced Dr. Morin and his elders to make four separate written requests that the Kirk elders remove the testimony from the worldwide web. But the Kirk elders refused because they insisted that they saw four signatures where none existed. Finally, after four long months and several nasty letters, they confessed to the “sin of haste.” Perhaps Xon can justify for us how four months of slanderous testimony based upon a fraudulent document translates into “the sin of haste.”

Finally, I note the desperate and preposterous skeptical measures Xon is already taking. We just can’t know what goes on in Wilson’s head, not even his motives or intentions. But this is silliness, and consistently applied, entails that no one has substantiated a charge against anyone in the history of the world. Since motives and intentions are necessarily hypothesized to understand human action at all, Xon defends Wilson by simply making him a who knows who, who does who knows what. This is not a very strong defense if you ask me.

The jury needs a coherent, plausible, and evidentially grounded alternative story, not the clamoring of the skeptic. Xon claims “There are any number of reasonable explanations,” and yet he does not give us even one. After all, how would Xon know what was going on in Wilson’s head?

Obviously, Wilson would have known what the primary argument was against his primary public opponent on his own public web site after it had sat there for a number of months, particularly after having conversations about its use. No, Wilson did not pull the letter “as soon as” he discovered its use, and Wilson knows it. Wilson covered his first fraud with just another lie.

I don't get it

2007-01-23T13:49:00.000-05:00

Quote #1:

I believe abortion should always be safe, legal, and easily attainable for any woman who needs the procedure.

Quote #2:

Every time I hear some conservative talk about "abortion on demand" I want to put my fist through a wall.

Getting to it at some point

2007-01-17T10:44:00.000-05:00

I have invited Michael Metzler, or any other Wilson detractor, to come to my admittedly under-trafficked blog and present whatever case they think they have against Wilson clearly and judiciously. Only make charges you have evidence for, and provide said evidence. If anyone thinks that they can meet this challenge, then I will cheerfully post your argument, as you write it without any edits whatsoever, here on my blog. This is not much in the way of publicity, but it is something. It appears that Michael Metzler is not going to take me up on my invitation, and it is certainly his right to refuse to do so. In my reply to him which he kindly published on his own blog, he interjected the following comment:

I need not give such evidence since it would seem obvious to me that the primary reason I would not post evidence on Xon’s blog is that I have already posted the evidence on my blog. I’m not sure why I would would seek to compound my labors in this way–unless Xon’s blog gains a readership greatly expanding my own.

This is fair enough, and I can't say I blame Michael for thinking this way.

I have made some sweeping claims here about the kind of evidence Michael routinely uses on his blog to defame Douglas Wilson. These sweeping claims were similar to my "opening statement" if I were a defense attorney (which I am not). Obviously when the "trial" actually starts I will have to back my claims up. If the prosecution stands up and presents tons of hard persuasive evidence, and I have no reasonable response, then my earlier claims about the evidence against Wilson being bad will be refuted, and I myself will be shown to have spoken hastily (at best) and probably to have sinned in making such sweeping claims. So, obviously we need to get to the evidence itself.

The ideal way to do this, I think, is for Michael to select his best stuff and post it for all of us to look at. Michael has (apparently) declined to do this, c'est la vie. This leaves me with "Plan B," which while not ideal should work well enough. This secondary plan requires me to go through Michael's blog and dig up the evidence he "has already posted," and evaluate it.

This will be slow going, both because Michael has posted hundreds of posts on Douglas Wilson at his blog over the last year, but also because I don't have the time that would be required to do this quickly. But I will do it, however ploddingly.

Just a notice about some future posts. Back about your business...

A Response to Michael Metzler

2007-01-12T18:15:00.000-05:00

Since I first posted some material concerning Michael Metzler a couple of weeks ago, Michael has posted a response at his site. In his response Michael gives his evaluation of the online interaction he and I have had over the past year or so.

Michael invited me to post a reply at his blog, and I wanted to reproduce that reply here as well. So, here is said reply.

------------------

Hello, Michael,

First of all, I honestly thought I had e-mailed you about my recent blog activity. I just checked my gmail archives and I see that I did not. I’ll plead the holidays on this, but still it is no excuse. I did not mean to appear like I was trying to snipe at you without your knowing about it, or anything like that. I hope it didn’t come across that way. If it did, then please accept my apology for not e-mailing you to let you know what was going on.

Second, I do disagree with your interpretation of our e-mail conversation . . . about the aborted debate we had (i.e. I was very much expressing interest in continuing the debate, but was giving you time to do so if you wanted it). But I don’t see why we should drag out all the details on that. Suffice it to say that I am simply concerned to let folks know that not all “Wilson apologists” refuse to interact with your evidence. I have in fact tried to do so on a number of occasions. I don’t have any particular desire to hash out why the original debate was stopped short, and I do not impute any bad motives to you in this. It simply, for whatever combination of reasons, was not continued, which I thought was a shame.

Third, I appreciate the way your basic interpretation of what I’m up to pushed all the rhetorical buttons that you needed to push. I don’t begrudge you this at all; “rhetoric” is not a bad word to me so long as it remains fitting with Christian charity, and your recent post to the Wood about me did remain so. We simply disagree as to what I’m really all about, but that’s not surprising given our respective positions in this conversation.

Fourth, I actually tried to pre-empt many of the things you said in my original “What’s this all about?” post. For instance, I realize that it looks like I’m making sweeping generalizations about your blog without myself providing evidence for those generalizations, and so I tried to explain myself along those lines right out of the gate to avoid confusion. I definitely agree with you that the things I have said cannot stand on their own. In other words, when I claim that your blog is full of slander and unsubstantiated accusations against Doug Wilson’s character (and I just want to remind everyone, for purpose of absolute clarity, that this is ALL I am concerned with discussing from your blog), I do have to back that claim up at some point. But this was the point of my analogy about a defense attorney and a court of law—all I have done so far is give the “opening statement”. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is no evidence that X committed this crime, or any crime, and everything the prosecution is going to try to show you will be full of holes.” I don’t necessarily need to say anything more than that at that initial point. I CAN’T say everything that needs to be said all at once. As the prosecution (you or any other Wilson accuser, on this analogy) presents their case, I will of course then have to engage their evidence as it comes up. So please don’t think that I do not intend to do that. This, in fact, is the whole point of what I am intending to do, with one addition. My own blog posts do stand as an accusation of sorts against you (and some other Wilson critics), since if I am correct that you consistently use insubstantial evidence to accuse Wilson of various things then this itself amounts to a “bad thing” that you are doing (on any Christian conception of ethics). So, stretching the metaphor, I am like a defense attorney who intends to argue for Wilson’s acquittal and then file a grievance afterwards against the prosecution. Obviously, this charge against you also MUST be substantiated, and the only way for me to do it is to consider the evidence that you (or other Wilson critics) actually do provide. My charge against many Wilson accusers is that they make poor arguments using poor evidence, so I have to look at their actual arguments and evidence to demonstrate that.

There are two ways for this evidence to be “presented.” One is that I go through the archives of your blog and dig up previous posts you’ve made against Wilson and treat that as “the prosecution’s case.” I simply respond to the things you have already written.

There are a few problems with this, it seems to me. For one, I will easily be accused of “cherry picking” if I do this. And I can understand the accusation because that IS what it will look like I am doing. People will wonder whether I am really digging up the strongest evidence against Wilson. Perhaps I am getting hung up on stuff that isn’t really that important, and leaving crucial stuff out. Perhaps I am picking only those posts of yours which are particularly weak (hey, you posted A LOT of stuff, some of it is bound to be weaker than the rest), in order to make myself look better. The only way to avoid this charge is for me to literally go through every anti-Wilson post you have put up on your blog and give it a critical commentary on my own. I don’t think anybody in the world WANTS to see me do this, and I certainly don’t want to do it. Furthermore, I am simply unable to do it. Your blog is a year old, with hundreds of Wilson-related posts. I am trying to finish a doctoral dissertation this semester. “Hey, that’s your problem, Xon, you started this!” Well, kinda sorta that’s true, and I do recognize that I am walking a fine line here, but it seems to me that I should be able to blog in part what I do not have time to blog in whole. In any case, this first option for interacting with your evidence against Wilson is not particularly desirable to me, or probably to anyone.

A further problem with this approach is that it isn’t as fair to you as it could be. Given that you now know what I intend to do, why not shore up your evidence and bring the hammer down all over again as concisely as you can. There is an opportunity to allow BOTH of us to benefit in this (as writing our thoughts helps shape our thoughts and defending our position “in action” helps us understand better what our position actually is). Which brings me to the second way to get your evidence against Wilson “presented.”

That second way is to simply invite you (or any other Wilson critic) to come present it anew, concisely and dispassionately. I wish there was already some sort of “third party” Reformed blog for doing this with the various controversies that arise in our circles, but there’s not, so I’m letting my blog be the place for this particular issue. If you are concerned about “home cooking” on my part, then I would be more than happy to have some other third party set up a blog where we can both have equal posting priveledges and hash this out. The point, though, is that I am trying very hard to avoid the status quo operating procedure for blog wars, which is the blogger presenting only his side, and perhaps the reader can bounce back and forth between several sources to keep up with the conversation. But even if the reader attends this tennis match, things still are not really presented particularly judiciously. It is just human nature to insert a lot of colorful rhetoric and things not so pertinent into one’s commentaries. This means that we are usually left with two bloggers, both glowing magnificently from their respective websites, and neither really addressing the substance of what the other says. I think it would go better if, all in one place, someone could come along and present their case, and then someone else could come along and defend. Again, another thing I said in my original post is that I realize that I am putting myself in the position of both partisan and judge in this particular case, as I am a Wilson partisan but I also want my blog to be the court where the conversation takes place. But keep in mind that really it is the readers who will decide for themselves (the readers are really more like the “judge” on this analogy) who makes the better case, based on the evidence presented and the response to that evidence given by the “defense.”

Now, I think I understand why you would not want to take me up on this invitation. Truthfully, I don’t know if I would either if the roles were reversed. So, if you do decide not to take me up on it, then I will revert to the first option for gathering evidence considered above and will start digging up some old Poohsthink posts and responding to those. This is not ideal, but it is what I will do if need be (charges that I am cherry-picking be darned). In either case, I do not intend to leave it that you present bad evidence and slander as some self-justifying claim.

Fifth, and finally, about the comment of yours to my blog from a few weeks ago which I deleted, the “sort of nonsense” I was referring to was not your argument about Wilson’s alleged attacks on the PCA. I wasn’t commenting on the substance of those posts at all; in fact, I haven’t read them. The “sort of nonsense” I was referring to was simply the very act of coming on to a blog (mine) that is about Steve Wilkins’ situation in the PCA and trying to use that as a forum to advertise for your own blog posts about Doug Wilson and the PCA. It’s off-topic, and comments get deleted in Cyberland all the time for less. I think it is seriously misguided to call this deletion “censorship”, and to use it as a reason for not taking me up on my offer to let you post some evidence at my blog.

I promise before everyone here, and you may post any private e-mails between us if you want, that I will not “censor” whatever evidence you send to me. If you think it makes your case against Wilson, then I will post it.

So, there it is. You pushed your rhetorical buttons that needed to be pushed, and I’ve pushed mine. I say that I am just a concerned citizen of Reformedville who wants to see greater judiciousness in the way internet debates and charges are carried out (my actual preference would be that internet charges didn’t happen at all, but I am not the emperor). You say that I am an emotional devotee of Wilson (albeit from a distance) and that I have a strange epistemological blockage when it comes to finding fault with him. I think now we are set up nicely. Let’s rock. If you want.

Regards,

Xon

A challenge to critics of Federal Vision stuff

2007-01-08T10:24:00.000-05:00

Related to the previous post, I want to extend a challenge to critics of "Federal Vision" theology. Hear ye, hear ye, come one and come all! I hereby challenge you to produce evidence that an FV thinker (you may choose any person associated with FV thinking who you would like to critique) is out of bounds with Confessional Reformed orthodoxy.

This requires you, obviously, to match up the accused's writings or other public statements with the particular Reformed Confession to which they are bound. For most this will be the Westminster Standards, but not for all.

Much like my invitation to people like Michael Metzler to come substantiate their personal charges against Doug Wilson, here I am inviting anyone who has a severe beef with FVish theology (i.e., not a mere disagreement on some point or other, but an earnest belief that the accused FV person is out of bounds with orthodox Reformed theology--e.g. that they deny the Reformed view of justification sola fide, for instance) to shoot me an e-mail making your case and I will post it here without comment (I mean, I might post separately and give some comments, but your own argument will be allowed to shine in all its glory).

I realize that my blog is not really a happening place, so perhaps nobody is enticed enough to post their arguments here. So I'll sweeten the pot: you FV critics can't do what I am inviting you to do. You cannot put up any actual substantive evidence that can reasonably convict FV folks of departing from Reformed orthodoxy. These are, indeed, fightin' words. So come fight. You get to pick the issue, and you get to make the opening statement.

I do have some rules, though. I will still post your presentation of evidence if you don't follow these rules, but they are still "rules" in that you are going to get a fairly predictable response from me if you don't follow them. Again, similar to my invitation/challenge to personal critics of Doug Wilson, here I want to operate something like a more official court of public opinion. This blog is not an actual court, of course, and thank goodness for that, but what I mean is that I expect there to be some actual rules followed. Rules about what constitutes actual evidence, etc.

So, here are the rules. Again, put the evidence together however you think best, but if you go against these rules then you will show yourself (and I will point it out) to be a rather unjudicious fellow, and to be sowing discord among the brethren without proper evidence. (That's bad.) Lest this scare you away because you are worried that I will accuse you of "sowing discord" even if you give a good argument, remember that I am a nobody and I have no power. If I accuse you falsely or if I irrationally reject your sound arguments, then this will be obvious to the few people who read my blog, and besides, it's just a few people anyway. In truth I think you will find me more than fair if you just stick to the rules. Furthermore, I invite you to contact the elders who are in authority over me if anything I say here strikes you as worthy of ecclesiastical admonition.*

Rule 1: Drop theological labels and give the definition you have in mind for that label. So, for instance, don't accuse Steve Wilkins of denying the "invisible church", accuse him of denying that there is a group of people who are predestined to glory who are currently believing in Christ becuase they have been given new hearts and who enjoy certain benefits right now because of those new hearts (if that is your definition of "invisible church"). So much of this debate is starting to turn over issues of langauge, and it is important to do our best to cut through as much of this as we can in order to come to a substantive criticism.

Rule 2: If you think that Rule 1 is unfair becuase the terms themselves are vitally important, and a person's very orthodoxy hangs upon the terms they use, then I admit to all of being highly skeptical of your argument right out of the gate. But I love a good debate, so please feel free to make your case. Just point out that you are pleading "Rule 2" when you do so. So, for instance, if you think that it is important not just to believe in a group of people who are predestined to glory and who are currently in a regenerate state and are members of God's covenant community, but also to call this group of people "the invisible church," then by all means try to make that case. But do remember, just as a preemptive word of caution, that you are not merely supposed to argue that Wilkins (or whoever) is incorrect, but that he is actually unorthodox, unconfessional, deserving of defrocking from the ministry, etc. This really seems to me like an impossible argument over the meaning of words, but like I said give it a shot if you want.

Rule 3: Follow the following basic outline:

First, explain (as briefly and concisely as you can) the doctrine that you think the Reformed confession teaches. Again, remember Rule 1 and try to put this doctrine in non-jargonized terms as best you can. (If you try to do this but something is unclear to me, I will ask you what you meant and give you a chance to clarify. I'm not going to jump down an man's throat for making an honest effort here.)

Second, explain why you believe this doctrine to be fundamental to Reformed orthodoxy. Why is this not simply an issue over which good Reformed people can disagree? Why is this not simply an allowable exception to the confession?

Third, show from the writings or other public teachings of some FVish person that that person denies the doctrine you have explained in the first step.

Rule 4: Cut the rhetoric that makes you sound like Luther and Machen rolled into one, if you can help it. There is no need for bold contra mundum pronouncments of "Here I stand," "May God have mercy on your souls," "Arise O Lord, and judge Thy cause!", etc.

This is about aesthtetics, and it's also about manners. Do your best to be polite, please.

That's all, folks!** I wish everyone the best of luck.

------

* I am currently under care of the Northeast Georgia Presbytery in the PCA. I attend Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Athens, GA. I don't want to list off the names of the session without their permission, but our church website is here. For the record, I don't believe that anybody on my session is sympathetic to FV views. They are probably less likely than some to want to see charges filed agaisnt FVish folks, but they definitely are not in the FV camp.

**I am a fallible, fallen, human being. I may figure some stuff out as this goes along that is better than the way I have put things here, and I reserve the right to figure that out and to react accordingly. But I pledge to clearly explain what is happening as I do so.

A Response to Richard Phillips' Comments, Part Two

2007-01-08T09:31:00.000-05:00

Richard Phillips has put together a fairly lenghty criticism of Wilkins' written answers for the Louisiana Presbytery. Near the end of that criticism Phillips writes "It is therefore my opinion that to accept TE Wilkins's teaching--with respect especially to the doctrines of election, perseverance, and the visible/invisible church --is to reject the teaching of the Standards on these doctrines.".

Jon Barlow has already put up a first response to Phillips, in which I think he does a really good job of showing the basic problem with Phillips' reasoning and interacts in some detail with Phillips' comments concerning election and perseverance.

To extend the spirit of Barlow's basic response and apply it to Phillips' comments on the visible/invisible church distinction, I offer a Part 2 to Barlow's fine response. This is definitely still a draft form, and comments are appreciated. (We may combine these together officially at some point in the near future. Either way, though, both parts can be available separately for now.)

Unbelievable Game!

2007-01-02T00:33:00.000-05:00

Uh......

Boise State just went flag football on Oklahoma. Whalkjk;ljkl;jlk;ajlk;jl;kj

It's really hard to know what to say. Just crazy!

Our First Arrow

2006-12-30T21:48:00.000-05:00

(This has also been posted at our family blog.)

Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them; they shall not be ashamed, but shall speak with their enemies in the gate. (Psalm 127:3-5)

I don't want to go into a whole polemic here about such controversial topics as contraception. There is no need to turn this happy time into an occasion for giving offense unnecessarily. I hope it will not be too offensive, though, if I simply say something about the attitude Christians should have towards children: they are a blessing from the Lord. Boys, girls; short, tall; all are from God. No other view of children is biblically acceptable.

The Psalm here speaks of having many children who will stand beside you to contend with your enemies in the gate of the city. While that image is perhaps a bit too militaristic for our contemporary tastes, the truth is that all Christians are at war--we battle against the powers of sin and darkness. Our weapons for fighting this war are not carnal, as the Scriptures so clearly tell us, but it is a real war. (Or, to put it better, it is the MOST real war.) There is an antithesis, as the Reformed often like to say, between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world. And everyone must choose sides. You are either for King Jesus or you are against Him.

And in our world today many are against Him. This will not always be so, praise be to God, but it is so at present. The Church is called to be a light to the nations, to gather the kingdoms of this world into the kingdom of God and of His Christ. This calling extends to every area of life--religious observance, academia, pop culture, art, family life, politics. The Christian faith involves a commitment to a new culture of God, and this culture is to become (over time) the culture of the world. All the nations are to be brought in.

The Church is called to do this, but we still have a long way to go. How will this battle be won? What is the plan for success in the cultural conquest? Here again the Scriptures are clear--it is the Church that tears down strongholds, and so it is first and foremost the life of the Church as a Church which is where our victory must be found. When the Church worships God rightly, joyously, thankfully, boisterously--the powerful are being brought low. When God's covenant people assemble every week to share in God's meal, to initiate new members into the covenant via the washing of regeneration, and to absorb the living Word of God with their ears--kingdoms are overthrown. When the Church stands up as the house God has built for Himself and offers the world the good news that it can find protection within her walls--societies are revolutionized. The power of the Gospel is the very power of God to change the world.

But tucked up neatly behind this truth--the Church is central to fighting for the crown rights of King Jesus--is another truth which is also clearly taught in Scripture. We might categorize this not so much as a "strategy" for seeking the kingdom, but rather as a "fact of life." If God's covenant community has to be the center of God's power in the world, then this presupposes that there is such a thing as God's covenant community. In other words, in order for the Church to do what it is supposed to do there must be a Church.

And this is one of the most important reasons, then, that I rejoice to hear the news that my wife is with child, that she will bear me a son. Because he is not just a cuddly bundle, he is the future of the Church. He is part of the reinforcements that God is bringing into the battle. He will stand and fight alongside his mother and I, and when we are gone he will continue to fight. He will have children of his own, and they will continue to fight, and in a hundred years the world will have been further conquered for Christ than it is now.

This is a view through eyes of faith, a hope in things not yet seen. The world is a scary place for the faith, both in terms of external threats (lots of competing gods who also want our attention) as well as internal ones (i.e., our own sinful hearts). And yet God has promised that His covenant is with us, and with our children. With me, and with my children. With Katie, and with her children. What choice do we have but to believe this promise and cling to God in faith? May God do with Bradley Davin as He says He will do.

I am not adequate to the calling of fatherhood. I am still something of a child myself. I still harbor my own selfishness, my own blind ways of looking at the world, my own impulses to justify myself rather than to trust in God. Now I must raise a son. His spiritual state is on me. I am charged by God to raise him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It is too much! Yet God calls me to do it, and I am back to faith again. Trust in the Lord, and He will fulfill all his promises. The same God who can make stones into sons of Abraham can make our son into a warrior for the kingdom.

So bring it on, I say. And may God grant me a spirit of bold humility to be the kind of man that my son must become. And, if God is willing, may this be only the first arrow in our quiver. May Katie and I live to see our own little arrows become men and women of great faith, warriors who press upon the world the claims of the one true King.

One warrior at a time, though. This is how the Church is built, and it is how the world is turned upside down. One generation at a time. For our household, the next generation arrives in May. I can't wait to meet him.

Rules for Accusations

2006-12-30T01:38:00.000-05:00

Okay, so here's what I'd like to try.

Michael Metzler has offered in the past to let "Wilson apologists" post things on his blog. I'm making a similar offer here, but I want to lay down a few ground rules first. Basically, you must follow the basic form I suggested in the previous post:

a. State what it is that you are accusing Doug Wilson of. Told a lie. Stole a horse. Drove off without paying for his gasoline. Etc.

b. State, list, or link to the evidence that you think demonstrates the alleged misdeed. Try your best, at this point, to simply point to where the evidence can be found (Think in terms of "State Exhibit 1"), and not to explain why this evidence is damning.

c. Explain why this evidence is damning. What does this evidence show, exactly? Make the case.

d. Leave your name, as well as the name of the church you attend where you are accountable to others. If a minister of the Gospel has to face the potential of real consequences coming from your charges, then you have to face this as well.

Now, here's my promise. If you write up something, following a - d, I will post it here without any editing. In fact, I'll go a bit further. Even if you do a lousy job, or don't even attempt to meet a - c, then I will still post it. Of course, I will point out any such failures in my response, and this will lead to your charges being dismissed by any reasonable 'court.' Regarding d I'm afraid this is non-negotiable. If you do not leave your real name and the name of the church to which you are accountable, then my promise to post what you write does not apply to you. I may still post it, for my own reasons, but I am not promising to do so. So, if you have something you want to submit, but you want to remain anonymous, or you are unable to give the name of a church to which you are accountable, then feel free to submit it to me and plead your case for why I should use it. But I make no promises is all.

I reserve the right to cut this off at some later time, or to create a new blog and switch the "promise" to that one.

I would love it if Metzler himself would come over here and post some things in this way, but any of Doug Wilson's accusers in the world should feel free to take advantage as well. Wilson is the topic du jour, but remember that my ultimate hope is that we in the Reformed world could have something like this that concerned broader issues. I'd love to have one website where, for instance, both sides of the "FV is heresy" argument could be presented, or whatever.

What's this all about?

2006-12-29T22:07:00.000-05:00

Almost Random Thoughts on the Need for Greater Reformed Judiciousness, and an accusation against PoohsThink

In the previous post I provided the full text of an aborted debate that Michael Metzler and I had in March and April of 2006. The debate concerns some very particular charges that Metzler made at that time on his blog against Douglas Wilson, his former pastor. Metzler's blog contains many posts on a variety of topics, but it is safe to say that what has generally "put him on the map" is his status as a critic of Wilson. There is no denying that criticisms of Wilson made up an overwhelmingly large portion of his blog in the early days (i.e. December 2005-April 2006, or so).

My fundamental view of this remains unchanged from what it was back in March. Metzler's blog, in my opinion, is full of unjust and unsubstantiated allegations against Douglas Wilson. While the particulars of these charges are of course necessary to discuss this topic in any meaningful way, my view is that the general form of these charges is where Metzler really tends to go wrong. He repeatedly, and insistently, makes allegations (or enables others to do so by passing along third-party allegations) on his blog which contain some clearly identifiable flaws. These flaws include: uncharitable interpretations of Wilson's own words; imputation of motivations to Wilson that have not been (and usually cannot be) established; rhetorical appeals to various abuses Wilson has allegedly committed but which themselves have not been established, all in the interest of making some new allegation more believable.

This was why I was debating Metzler on the topic of "The Letter without Signatures." Not because I have any particular interest in digging up details of a church fight in Idaho from 1993, but simply because this was at the time (Marxh 2006) the latest example of what I found to be unjust and irresponsbile allegations at Metzler's blog. I e-mailed Metzler about my concerns, and after several rounds of private correspondence he and I decided to engage in a "formal" debate on this matter, focusing on a particular post of his concerning the Letter without Signatures. Unfortunately this debate was never completed. In any case, my concern then, as now, was not to focus on the particular events about the Letter themeslves, but insofar as it was possible to demonstrate what I thought was going wrong with Metzler's reasonsing against Wilson. There have been many more allegations made by Metzler on his blog besides this business about the Letter without Signatures, but I believe that all of these allegations go wrong in a similar way. (The reader may skip to the final two paragraphs if he wants to just get the gist of where I'm coming from in all this. For a more detailed presentation and further qualifications, read it all.)

--------------------

This is hard to demonstrate, of course. How can I show that every charge--or even just that most of the charges--which Metzler has produced at his blog in the last year is faulty without going through them one-by-one? To be sure, I can't. I can say that I have a read a good deal of Metzler's blog posts pertaining to Doug Wilson, and that my belief in their patterned faultiness is based on these observations. But, still, I can't actually demonstrate here on my own blog this pattern without going through hundreds of Metzler's posts and discussing their reasoning systematically, and I simply am unable to do that. All I can do is try to take certain things as they come up and argue against them. This might seem like I am "cherry-picking" only those issues where Metzler's argument is weakest. I don't want to do that, and I don't think I am doing so. But, I hope to give anyone who disagrees with me here an opportunity to respond. More on this in a moment.

There is a sense in which Metzler's blog has its own momentum now. Every new charge gets to sit on the shoulders of all the previous charges that have gone "unanswered." This is a problem with "attack blogs" in general--for lots of reasons it is easier for the accuser to produce accusations at a more voluminous rate than any defenders can (or will) produce defenses, and so with time a large pile of "unanswered charges" is up to the ceiling, and those who are sympathetic to the accusations can then use this pile to lend "contextual justification" for further accusations. "I have accused Smith of x, which has never been refuted. Now today we see another example of this same sort of thing..." Of course Metzler can always come back and say that I am miscontruing what he is up to, and that every one (or very many) of his charges have been substantiated. I'm not trying to get away without an argument here, in other words. But, again, more on this in a moment.

I have several concerns about posting our discussion here, then. I've already laid my cards on the table, so it is obvious that I have my own bias in this. I do believe that Doug Wilson has been and continues to be slandered on Metzler's blog. I did not come to this judgment lightly, for I do not know Doug Wilson personally and I am wisened enough by the world to know that leaders often have feet of clay. If Wilson turned out to be corrupt, then my world would not fall apart. I would be disappointed, because I have profited much from some of Wilson's writing, but in principle there is nothing odd about the idea that such a person as Wilson could fall from grace. But this brings me to my first major concern in posting about all this. I fear that I might be subverting my own purpose by posting our debate because to even have a discussion about accusations against Wilson gives a certain amount of implicit credibility to those accusations. I've already said that I think Wilson is slandered, but to have a debate about this implies that a lot of reasonable people might take the opposite view. When you have a debate about whether Smith killed Jones, it makes it seem like there is at least a good chance that Smith might have killed Jones. Sure, Smith might get off when all the evidence is weighed, but we are tempted to think that the very fact that there is a trial means that the defendant did something to get into that much trouble in the first place. People might be tempted to think something like this: "Oh, those two are having a discussion about whether Mr. Smith stole his neighbors' chickens, so there must be something reasonable to thinking Mr. Smith is guilty. Otherwise, if the charges were totally without merit, then why would anyone even be bothering to discuss it?"

I am concerned that by making the effort to show that the charges Metzler brings against Wilson are unsubstantiated and unjust that I will end up giving certain ammunition to those who dislike Wilson and will only see that these charges are being talked about again, and so think there must be something to them. This is a risk I am taking, and I hope that this does not backfire on me.

Why post this, then? Because my thinking now is that, despite the risks, the only way to show that charges are without merit is to discuss those charges and show that they are without merit. If Metzler's blog didn't get any hits and he was generally ignored, then it would make more sense to simply ignore such charges. If nobody's listening to the charges anyway, then there is no need to show anything about them. But becuase there are a number of people out there who read Metzler's blog and who take his charges seriously, and because Metzler himself has claimed on a number of occasions at his blog that "Wilson apologists" are unwilling or unable to refute the sorts of things that he provides in his posts against Wilson, it seems that a service can be done by engaging Metzler's blog directly; and I, for whatever reason, do find myself in a position to make that engagement.

My second concern relates to what I said above about the way things have already piled up on Metzler's blog. I cannot possibly sort through all of this in any systematic way. Yet I am still willing to say that Metzler is guilty of making faulty accusations against Wilson, and I am even willing to go further and say that his accusations suffer from a general faultiness? How can this be? How can I say this? My concern is that I might appear to be doing the same thing I accuse Metzler of doing--making faulty and hasty accusations against someone that are not substantiated by evidence. So, am I guilty of hypocrisy on this point?

I don't think so, because what I am trying to do here is something similar to what a defense attorney does. This is not an official court--presbyterian or civil--and thank goodness for that. But the truth is that the "court of public opinion" also functions sometime very much like any other court, and these internet fracases always take place in that public opinion court on some level or another. So I think it is important to have defense attorneys in such situations. And defense attorneys can say that their client will be acquitted without going through every single bit of evidence that has been presented, or that might be presented at a later time, against their client. On any charge I have discussed with Metzler directly, I am convinced that Wilson would be "acquitted"--with the court's apology--in any honest court. Concerning every charge I have read on Metzler's blog but haven't discussed with him directly, I am confident of the same outcome, though this starts to get a bit hazy because there are simply so many things that Metzler has said on his blog. I am definitely confident of this, though--Metzler hasn't said anything on his blog that could ever convict Wilson of misconduct approaching a "weightier matter of the law." At best, Metzler might be able to get Wilson for some "heat of the moment" carelessnesses, but this is hardly the sort of thing that would disqualify someone from ministry, or render them deserving of disrespect or a general loss of influence in the Reformed theological world.

A quick example regarding this "weightier matters of the law" stuff. In September Wilson posted on his blog that he now had Metzler caught in a lie, and that this lie demonstrated that Metzler was not a trustworthy of witness and thus all his accusations against Wilson should be "thrown out" in the court of public opinion. I think Wilson overplayed his hand here. I think there is a charitable way to interpret Metzler's words that acquit him of any charge of lying, and I am also skeptical of any attempt to dis-substantiate everything Metzler has ever said about Wilson on the basis of that one alleged lie.

But I also don't think that any of this rises to the level of any major misconduct on Wilson'g part. In the heat of a rhetorical battle with Metzler that has now stretched out over a year, a battle in which Metzler did choose on a number of occasions to go onto Wilson's blog under a pseudonym after he had been banned, Wilson's zeal to defend himself led him to over-reach at a statement Metzler left on another blog in which Metzler claimed to be "one of the most anonymous guys on the internet." Wilson interpreted this as an outright lie by Metzler, and then trotted out the evidence that Metzler had indeed posted on his blog under various pseudonyms. I'll leave it to Wilson to decide whether he thinks this haste constitutes a sin or not on his part (I don't think it does), but even it is I don't see how it constitutes a "weightier matter of the law."

But Metzler on his blog did not rest with defending himself against the charge that he had lied. He went on to file many of his posts about this matter under "Doug Wilson, Lying Sophist." It wasn't just that Wilson had over-reached in accusing Metzler of lying, but that Wilson himself was a liar for making the accusation. From my perspective, Metzler ended up doing the very thing here that Wilson had done. Nothing about the situation warranted the conclusion that Wilson was lying about Metzler, but simply that he had made a mistake in the heat of rhetorical battle.

Please notice something: I am trying to attribute the same charity here to both Metzler and Wilson. This is my point: when Wilson accused Metzler of lying about being anonymous on the internet, I think this was a mistake. But it was also a mistake when Metzler then counter-accused Wilson of lying. Whether these mistakes rise to the level of actual sins, I do not think they are weighty enough in either case to delegitimize what the mistaken person is doing. And it starts a real mess for either side to try to condemn the other too strongly in this matter.

(Note, though, that I do think Metzler's mistake was greater here, and more likely to rise to the level of a sin, because:

a. Metzler did not present any evidence for his interpretation of Wilson as liar, whereas Wilson at least did have evidence that Metzler had posted pseudonymously on his blog. Metzler simply gave an account of Wilson as "knowing that he is lying about me here", but this could not be substantiated by Metzler.

b. On the "court" analogy, Metzler is the accuser and Wilson is the defender. When a defender is over-zealous in his own self-defense and ends up attributing something to his accuser that doesn't stick, it is not quite the same as when the initial accuser then uses that over-reach by the defendant to add yet another accusation against him. While I was accusing you of other bad stuff, you then accused me of something that wasn't quite right, so now I'm really going to accuse you! Metzler cannot jump and down on "Wilson just LIED about me by saying that I lied" without condemning himself in the very act of making the charge.)

Of course, the "court of public opinion" is also, in many ways, not a real court at all, and I don't want to overpress the analogy. There are plenty of significant differences between what goes on in these cyberfights and what goes on in a duly constituted presbyterian or civil court. What's more, I don't want to give the impression that daily life should become so litigious that it can be compared tightly to more official courtroom settings. That would be a nightmare! I'm not saying "Let's have a trial about these things," but rather I am just pointing out that, for whatever reason, these cyberfights about the character of other ministers already amount to a sort of trial. And, since they do, it would be nice if we could impose some sort of order on them which they currently lack.

In other words, this ties in to my first concern. I am worried about giving the appearance of credibilty to these charges. But I think in the end that I am doing something good here by posting this, because I am forcing the accuser (in this case, Metzler) to go on the defensive. Metzler can either ignore me, or he can respond. If he responds, then the conversation here will not be about that dirty scoundrel Wilson any more--it will be about the shape of Metzler's accusations and whether Metzler can give an account of himself in this matter.

In a very important sense, then, what I am doing here is not at all like a "defense attorney" at all. I am, rather, trying to offer a defense by forcing the accuser play defense a bit. But this is not being done as some diversionary tactic, nor am I forcing Metzler to defend himself against some charges that might exist (hypothetically) independently of the context of our present conversation. (In other words, I am not putting Metzler on the defensive by accusing him of some random unconnected misdeed, like robbing banks, in order to keep him busy.) Rather, the substance of my accusation against Metzler is precisely about the accusations that he has chosen to bring against Wilson. These charges are public, for all to see, and they abound on Metzler's blog. It is these charges that I think put Metzler in a position where he needs to defend himself a bit. In other words, Metzler goes around accusing Wilson of various things without improper evidence. This, and nothing more, is the accusation I make against him.

Now that it's clear that the defense attorney analogy isn't quite right, let's switch metaphors. I think that this is the main promise that could be offered by having some sort of respected independent "Presbyterian press", as Jon Barlow has suggested recently. The reason I think such a press could be beneficial to the Reformed world is that it could function a lot like a court of public opinion, as some sort of mechanism for making these disputes public but still subject to certain rules of justice. This does not generally happen on blogs--the blogger puts forth his own intepretation of what is going on, leaves a lot unsaid or implied, lets the reader make certain connections, etc.--there is no real direction or over-arching sense of order to the discussion. No rules about what constitues evidence proper, and what constitutes commentary upon that evidence. No rules about what sorts of rhetorical appeals are allowed based on evidence, and which are out of bounds of Christian charity because they go far beyond anything that is in evidence and in fact improperly sway the "jury" in a way that has nothing to do with the evidence that has been presented. It's just a swirl of accusations and (perhaps) defenses, with the general public left trying to sort it out. Sometimes this works out okay in the end I suppose, but usually it doesn't.

What a press could do, and what I am hoping to do here in my own modest way, is act as a cyberspace accusation bulletin board where accusations can be plainly stated and the evidence for those accusations can be presented, and then the reading public can decide (much like a jury) how to judge based on the evidence presented and nothing else (which isn't quite possible, of course--no neutrality, Van Til, yada yada yada).

In short, I want accusers to have to play by some sort of rules. Come forth and explain clearly what the accusation is that you are levelling against so-and-so and what the evidence is for that accusation. You may submit the evidence, and then you may offer your interpretation of it which you think other reasonable and judicious people should accept. And then a defender can come along and offer their defense in light of the same evidence. No more piling up of words on separate blogs, always intepreting the evidence at the same time you are presenting it. It would be awesome if we had a place where things had to go something like this:

"I hereby charge Xon Hostetter with being a malicious liar. He deliberately and with malice told a falsehood with intent to deceive. Here is the evidence that I think shows that he did this." Link to the evidence itself. "Here is my interpretation of this evidence, my reasons for thinking that it shows Xon to be a liar."

Then I or one of my defenders (if I had any) could step up and present the pro-Xon argument, either by contesting the evidence itself ("No, Xon never actually said that"; "That's not his handwriting"; etc.) or by countering the reasoning of the anti-Xon interpretation of the evidence ("Yes, Xon acted in haste. No, this does not mean that is guilty of maliciously lying.")

Such a place does not currently exist, though. And I am not claiming that I am the best qualified to create one, given that I have already admitted to being a Wilson advocate in this particular discussion. But nonetheless it needs to happen, so at the moment I guess I am acting as both an advocate for a particular side and as the keeper of the public bulletin board. But I want to make this as fair as I possibly can, so see the next post where I lay out the rules whereby I think this can happen.

---------------

Bringing all this back to Metzler specifically. In my exprience with Metzler to date, for all the posts and rhetoric at his blog about these matters, it is extremely difficult to get him to simply come forward and say what exactly he is accusing Wilson of, and what the evidence is that he thinks demonstrates that it is so. The evidence he does sometimes present is never as conclusive as he thinks it is, and any reasonable discussion can bear this out (this is my claim). Metzler generally bolsters his Wilson-as-guilty-of-such-and-such interpretation by appealing to a bunch of things that Wilson has allegedly done in the past. This is what Wilson does; not the first time I've been kicked in the face by Wilson; Wilson says x but he really means y; etc. etc. etc. None of these rhetorical floursihes are ever substantiated, at all, and so all Metzler is left with, at the end of the day, is a long list of accusations with very little evidence provided. And what evidence is provided is always flimsy and subject to multiple reasonable intepretations.

Finally, I do not make any claims as to what exactly motivates Metzler to commit these alleged slanders, nor am I claiming that he even is self-aware that they are slanders. I am not imputing motives to him here; I am simply claiming that, whatever his motives, this is what he does and what he does is wrong.

An Aborted Debate

2006-12-29T21:43:00.000-05:00

The following is a very brief "debate" that I had with Michael Metzler back in March and April of this year. We were each limited to 300 words in each round. Sadly, Michael decided not to continue this debate, so there's not a lot here. I give an opening, Michael gives an opening. Then I give a "Round 2" response, to which Michael never responded. The openings were posted on Michael's blog back on March 31, but my Round 2 statement never saw the cyberlight. Until now.

(It is important, I think, to read the post immediately after this one--I'm publishing them simultaneously--to get some more context as to why exactly I am putting this up.)

Xon's Opening

Brief prologue: I agree in substance with Wilson’s (aphoristic) “justice primer” series, particularly these three posts.

The following sins have already been confessed:

a. The CC committee included in its 2003 response to Morin’s “solemn charges” affidavit references to two illegitimate documents (the now-infamous 12/17/03 LWoS and another document).

b. The committee falsely accused Morin of hypocrisy, based on the illegitimate LWoS.

But in "The Letter Without Signatures, Part 4" (LWoS 4), you seem to argue that Wilson (and the CC Session) is guilty of sins beyond these, namely:

(1) He lied (by omission) in 2003 when the committee first used the LWoS to answer Morin’s charges, because he "knew" it was illegitimate then but didn’t correct the record. (2) Then he and the session dragged their feet for 4 months before they publically came clean. Have I missed any other alleged sins in that post?

My concern about Poohsthink is this: there is nothing in your post that actually confirms either of these 2 further sins. (1) Given Wilson’s own account that this was due to his faulty memory and lack of direct involvement with the committee, where is the evidence that your own well-cited reconstruction of events, taken in all it’s glory, is the correct one? Both “theories” fit the facts. Charity says we accept the explanation of the accused, doesn’t it? Even with (2), there are plenty of reasons why it might be appropriate, in a judicial setting, to proceed slowly in taking the illegitimate references down from the CC website and issuing a formal and public apology. Taking "as soon as" as a contradiction of this would be, frankly, nit-picky and hyper-judgmental.

Simply: what sins do you think Wilson and co. still need to confess? And what, exactly, is the evidence that these sins have been committed?

Michael's Opening

Thank you Xon. This is a criticism of Part 4 in our series of The Letter Without Signatures. Recall that as this series progressed we unpacked a number of implicit problems found in Part 4, which you do not address. Instead, you claim that Part 4 has not ‘confirmed” the statement:

“[Wilson] and the session dragged their feet for 4 months.”

But if Part 4 does not confirm precisely this, I do not understand what it could possibly confirm. Of course Part 4 ‘confirms’ this statement! This statement is in fact an understatement. Over a period of literally months Wilson and Jones stubbornly refused to publicly acknowledge their on-going public falsehood even while a local church was repeatedly calling them to. Instead of acknowledging that they had been caught displaying falsehood, they rather used their own public falsehood to literally black-mail the other church into answering certain questions. Once they finally did publicly admit the falsehood, they still neglected to stop publicly displaying the falsehood for another period of months.
Wilson and Jones have not come to defend themselves about this because they simply have no defense. You assert here what is clearly false, Xon. What you also fail to recognize is that Wilson said “as soon as” as his primary defense. His point was that he was blameless because they pulled the falsehood as soon as they knew of it. But this is precisely what they did not do, and precisely why they are not blameless. Instead of pulling it as soon as anything, they rather willfully left it up for many months while under protest by another local evangelical church! In other words, Wilson simply defended the outrageous use of The Letter Without Signatures with just another lie. You call concern over this “nit-picky and hyper-judgmental”?

Xon's First Response

I’ll happily consider all evidence offered, whether LWoS 4 or elsewhere, but I opened with LWoS 4 because that is our ‘official’ topic. I even asked you what further sins in LWoS 4 you think I am missing (even if implicit). You “up the ante” in your opening with words like “blackmail”, and by saying that Wilson’s own explanation (presumably 2/15/06) of his “lie” from 2003 was itself another lie. Perhaps these are two new unrepented-of sins to add to the list of allegations? But no evidence is offered.

Sticking (for now) with the allegations in my opening, what’s the evidence that Wilson “knew” the LWoS was bogus and that he deliberately allowed the CC committee to use a false document in 2003? You’ve offered nothing along these lines.

About the foot-dragging sin, I was unclear. Your post provides evidence (though I’d like to hear the other side of those E Free exchanges) that there was in fact a delay between finding out the LWoS was bogus and publicly acknowledging and apologizing for that fact. But it does not prove that this delay constitutes a sin. Unless you believe that such delays are always sinful?

One new thing not in my opening. Even if you “get” Wilson and co. on this sin of delay, why push such “lesser” matters of the law? In the midst of public charges and trying to answer those charges, Wilson and co. used some bad evidence (not necessary to their overall counter-argument). They eventually apologized to their accusers for it (How difficult!). But now you allege a further sin in when they apologized. Let love cover it.

Wilson wrote “as soon as” in a comment under his post, not in the “main defense” itself. Word choice in a blog comment? Again, let love cover it.

------

Glossary

Wilson= Doug Wilson (obviously?)

CC= Christ Church of Moscow, ID (where Doug Wilson is pastor)

Morin= Terry Morin, a former elder of ~~Christ Church~~ Community Evangelical Fellowship (which was what Christ Church was called in 1993)

LWoS= The "Letter without Signatures", which was a part of the controversy that arose at Christ Church (then called "Community Evangelical Fellowship") in 1993 in the wake of Doug Wilson coming to embrace paedobaptism. Michael Metzler (Pooh) made several posts early in 2006 concerning this letter (from 1993) and the implications he thinks it to have for Doug Wilson's character.

E Free= The Evangelical Free Church of Pullman, WA (a close neighbor to Moscow, ID). Terry Morin ~~is a member of this church now.~~ was a member here after leaving Christ Church (Community Evangelical Fellowship), though he has not been a member of E Free for over a year now.

This argument you keep making...

2006-12-20T10:43:00.000-05:00

I do not think it works how you think it works.

First off, if one objects to those who think of sex as being "placed up on a pedestal, accessible only within certain arbitrary boundaries," then it doesn't really make sense to say that you agree that "sex is sacred, but not in the way most people use that word." Because sacred means holy, set apart. So it seems that people who think of sex as set off from the rest of life by some sort of moral boundary, who place it up on a pedestal as a special kind of activity only to be engaged in under certain moral or religious parameters, are correct to describe sex as "sacred." If you don't think sex is like this, then you are simply disagreeing with the assertion that "sex is sacred." It seems better to just admit this rather than to play Humpty Dumpty and claim for yourself some special meaning of the word "sacred". Or, in the absence of this admission, to at least not accuse those who use the word in the standard sense of not knowing what the word means. It is one thing to argue for your own non-conventional definition of a word; it is entirely another to charge conventional usages with being incorrect.

Second, it's difficult to see from here how one can call "skubalon" against those who would speak of the marriage bed as being "intimate." In fact, it's a bit scary to think what such a charge might have in mind. Are people to treat their marriage beds as non-intimate? What would this mean, exactly? Open the blinds? Call some folks up on the phone? Sex with people besides your spouse? Is one of these to become the normal way that married people view their sexual relationship with one another? If so, then it seems we will have to overhaul the more conventional meanings of a few other words (but why stop when you're on a roll?). Words like "marriage" and "vow," for starters.

Or, more literally, perhaps the criticism just means that people should not treat the actual object of their "marriage bed" as "intimate". But, of course, this strays a bit far from the meaning of "intimacy", since it's hard to believe that anyone who uses the phrase "the intimacy of the marriage bed" means to refer to the object against the wall beside the night table. Why would anyone, even a knuckle-dragging fundamentalist, ever say that such an object has "intimacy"? I don't think they would. But perhaps we could interpret the criticism as saying simply that people should not feel ahsamed of using the bed for purposes other than intimate ones? Like, having the guys over for a poker game, and putting all the chips and cigar ashes and things on the bedspread. I doubt that even the most rabid fundamentalist would disagree with this (well, except the poker game part: a knitting party perhaps? Though these gatherings of friends can also be described as "intimate", can't they? Perhaps we need to have a block party, in the bedroom, on the bed, in order to properly communicate that we are not treating a mattress as intimate). But I suppose that it's still a true point, despite its banality. I mean, some people are poor and only have one room, right? You might need to use your bed for other purposes. So, if anyone actually tried to say that the actual bed a married couple sleeps in is an object that should never be used for any other purpose other than private activities between the couple is probably being a bit silly. But of course, it is close to impossible to believe that anyone would ever actually believe, which is what makes the criticism banal, but definitions can be banal. If you define a word differently than anyone actually defines it and in a way that is obviously silly, then I call BS on such unconventional and silly definitions. Uh, true dat, I guess.

Which brings us back to the more obvious figurative interpretation, and back to my concern that telling married couples that they should not think of the sex they have with each other as intimate is, at the very least, a bit scary.