The End of an Era?

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

Economists don't understand economics

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hey! They look a lot like us!

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

Should the hits keep on coming?

"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.

Read More...

Summary only...

What Anti-War Conservatism Looks Like

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Warfare State and the Welfare State are friends

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Reading Passage to help you study for standardized tests

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

Read More...

Summary only...

Let's see, what have we missed?

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

The anti-FV challenge: Part VII

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

The anti-FV challenge: Part VI

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

Even "all" has a context

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.

Read More...

Summary only...