Many people understand the Federal Visionists to be saying that the non-elect in the visible church get the exact same benefits as the elect do but then lose them.
However, the Federal Visionists would not put it this way. In their understanding, they do not affirm this. They believe there are benefits that are given to the elect that are described in the Westminster Confession which could be called “saving” (in their use) or “special,” but there are also another set of benefits given to all the members of the visible church which they call “common” or “covenantal” benefits.
Even though people are mistaken about the Federal Vision views, there is good reason for this mistake. These “common” benefits go by the same names, are often found in the same verses, and contain many of the same properties as the “special” or “saving” benefits. As Peter Leithart wrote in his reply to the 9 declarations of General Assembly on Federal Vision concerning Gal. 3:28–29 and 1 Cor. 6:11, “these benefits of baptism, however, belong finally only to the baptized who respond to God’s grace in faith; there are some who are made sons by baptism who fall away.”
Nonetheless, it is the case that Federal Visionists make a distinction between these special and common benefits. I would like to illustrate this from Steve Wilkins’ reply to the nine declarations of the 35th General Assembly concerning Federal Vision. It is important to recognize that FV men can affirm that the benefits described in the Confession such as justification, adoption, and sanctification are only given to the elect. As Steve Wilkins writes in reply to one of the declarations:
Here it appears, however, that the committee is using the terms “justification, adoption and sanctification” as the Westminster Confession defines them, i.e., as blessings given exclusively to the decretally elect and not to each member of the visible church. If I am correct with this assumption, then I agree with this declaration.
However, it is also clear that Wilkins believes that the Bible describes another justification and sanctification that is given to the entire visible church:
I do believe that Paul uses these same terms in a broader way in the Scriptures. For example:
. . . He speaks of all who are washed (which I take as a reference to baptism) as being “justified” (I Cor. 6:9-11). If I am correct, Paul is not using this term the same way that the writers of the Confession are, because these same people are later warned against the possibility of falling away and being condemned (I Cor. 10:1-11). Thus, Paul is not referring to something that is only given to the decretally elect here.
Thus, the same terms and similar descriptions are applied to the whole visible church, but, since the Westminster Confession is describing things that only go to the elect, these are not in view in passage like 1 Cor. 6:11 which speaks of the benefits common to the visible church, though they do not belong to all of them “finally” as Leithart notes.
Federal Visionists want to emphasize a qualitative difference between the two sets of benefits in spite of their similarity. As Doug Wilson colorfully puts it:
To pummel the point (if I may), I have taught (in very clear and divers ways) that the grace given to the decretally elect at the point of the effectual call is grace that is qualitatively different than the common operations of the Spirit enjoyed (for a season) by the unregenerate covenant member. I have heaped this point up in a rumpled pile and have danced around it, gesticulating with enthusiasm. I have made a big building out of this point, and put a blinking neon sign on top of it. If this point were an overpass, I have spray-painted my agreement with it in bright green letters at least eighteen inches high. With my white chef’s hat on, I have wheeled this point out of the kitchen on a cart, poured brandy all over it, and set it on fire. If the point were a pudding, I would have added three eggs beyond what the recipe called for. To summarize briefly, this is not something I have somehow neglected to say.
That being said, while they certainly acknowledge it, they do not want to overemphasize it. Although there is a qualitative difference, it is often not in view when we speak to the people of God, for example, in the warning passages of Scripture. As Rich Lusk notes (cited from Jeffrey Meyers’ “30 Reasons”):
. . . this is not to say that there is no actual difference between the grace that the truly regenerate receive and the grace that future apostates receive. No doubt, there is a difference. . . Whatever grace reprobate covenant members receive is qualified by their lack of perseverance. Augustine rightly distinguished ‘predestination unto grace,’ which was only temporary, and did not lead to final salvation, from ‘predestination unto perseverance,’ which did issue forth in eternal life . . . Rather, [the] presence or absence [of persevering faith] qualifies one’s whole participation in the ordo salutis. The point here, however, is that this qualitative difference is not in view in warning passages such as Hebrews 6 . . . (p. 275).
Peter Leithart in his reply to the 9 declarations also noted that there was a qualitative difference and described it this way:
During the time they are branches in the vine, they do receive benefits from Christ through the Spirit and may enjoy real, personal, and deep communion with Jesus for a time. Yet, their relationship with Christ is not identical to the relationship of the elect. Put it this way: Some are united to Christ as members of the bride but are headed for divorce; others are united and headed for consummation. Marriages that end in divorce are not the same as marriages that end happily.
So, to sum up the Federal Vision view (as I see it):
- There are special benefits for the elect, and these are the benefits described in the Westminster Confession.
- There are common benefits that are not described in the Confession but have the same names and many of the same and similar properties as the special benefits.
- There is a qualitative difference between the two benefits and not merely a temporal one.
- This qualitative difference is of limited practical and exegetical use.
Granted that my view of the Federal Vision is correct as I have defined it here, do you see any problem with this view? Do you view it as inconsistent with the Confession? Is it a sufficient distinction between the benefits received by the reprobate and the elect by baptism? Is there any wrong way to describe the qualitative difference between the benefits received by the elect and non-elect in the visible church?
I would like to hear your opinion. I will explain my view at some point. I know that Federal Vision tends to produce heated rhetoric. I would ask that you reserve that for other forums and give me your reasoned opinion on this matter.
Tags: Federal Vision, General Assembly, Peter Leithart, Rich Lusk, Saving Benefits, Steve Wilkins
then is faithfulness (works) the determining factor between someone who is decretally elect and someone who is merely an unregenerate covenant member?
Thank you, Wes. I deeply appreciate your keen analysis and approach in this posting. I will offer my thoughts (since you have joyfully stirred them up here) as time permits. Blessings.
>>then is faithfulness (works) the determining factor between someone who is decretally elect and someone who is merely an unregenerate covenant member?
No, the determining factor is whether their name is written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
Those whose name is so written will be faithful and persevere. Those who are not will not.
Chris, several replies:
1. First, it is not accurate to say that the FV members view some members of the visible church as “unregenerate.” They only deny that all in the visible church do not get “regeneration” in the technical sense of the Standards as a lasting change unto eternal life. As Jeffrey Meyers explained to the MOP committee investigating him:
2. From the perspective of man, it is unfaithfulness that makes the difference. Those who are unfaithful lose the justification and sanctification that they possessed, according to FV.
3. From the perspective of God, this was all under His control. FV men believe that God predestined some to a temporary justification and others to a final justification (and others to not justification at all, i.e., those outside the visible church).
I hope that helps.
Pastor White
I believe your analysis is correct.
In an effort define corporate justification Doug Wilson writes, “Dean, corporate justification is God’s forensic declaration that the human race has been legally and covenantally reconstituted in Christ, the last Adam. The Church, as the bride of Christ, is the instantiation of that blessing in the world, for the world.” (Post 31)
Unanswered Questions to Wilson:
“human race” – Does this include all the human race or the baptized human race or is it the baptized human race that have temporary faith? Or is temporary faith received as a part of baptism?
Would you consider the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to be at all the grounds or cause of God’s forensic declaration? Or is the ground or cause of corporate justification merely in the water of baptism? (Post 36) http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/on-a-debate-with-wilson/#comments
Until FV proponents provide definitions which are in harmony with the teaching of Scripture any efforts toward unity will be limited.
Thanks Wes, I was using Wilson’s own term “unregenerate covenant member” from the quote you provided.
Sorry I was unclear with my question but you managed to answer it anyway: “From the perspective of God, this was all under His control. FV men believe that God predestined some to a temporary justification and others to a final justification (and others to not justification at all, i.e., those outside the visible church).”
I was curious what their view was because if they are saying that some men can be justified (decretally elect) one day and not the next due to unfaithfulness then the logical conclusion is that men are the determining factor in their election, which smells like synergism.
But if they are saying that there are two types of justification (with God the determining factor in both) then I guess synergism isn’t the problem. So the next question is where do they get this notion of temporary justification, union, forgiveness, etc?
Based on the limited materials that I have read, I think you perceive these fellows basically the way they’re intending to be understood. Your four-point summary seems accurate to me. If I were to say it in my own words, it would be something like . . .
Persons, who are ultimately predestined to reprobation but who belong to the visible church for a season and then fall away (i.e. covenantal apostates), participate in genuine and significant blessings and graces during their time in the visible church, and those blessings can be properly described using terms that are historically associated in Reformed theology with a narrower meaning and application that the Scriptures’ breadth of term use. This participation in these blessings by these names is true in an objective corporate sense, but in a subjective personal sense this participation is functioning as a curse.
1 Corinthians 6:9-12 ~ “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? . . . And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
I think “washed” can be reasonably understood to refer to baptism here. The string of verbs here (washed, sanctified, justified) seem connected in some way, that Paul’s making an association between them all. If it’s reasonable to assume that a few of the Christians he was addressing could and did eventually fall away (or that we can assume it hypothetically for the purposes of application in our teaching now), it seems as if it’s okay to refer to everyone in the collective sense as being sanctified and justified, though it’s may not be true of every single individual. (I recall that you describe it to me this way once, Wes.) The usual approach of a judgment of charity until evidence proves to the contrary is good. And this approach to regarding one as sanctified and justified because of their formal (objective) baptismal connection to the Church as the dwelling place and early institution means of justification and sanctification need not be seen in conflict with the judgment of charity approach or that a reprobate at no time in his life is actually personally holy and righteous (via imputation by genuine saving faith in Christ). It may be subtle and have potential for confusion, but it seems acceptable with the language use in Scripture. And interestingly, Paul begins with a comment about “the unrighteous” (contrasted with the righteous, i.e. those with justification) and then specifies who he’s talking about with a list of individuals characterized by specific sinful practices. In some way, this seems to suggest a works-based concept of justification – that the justification we talk about with regard to Sola Fide isn’t the only sense of justification in Scripture. “Wisdom is justified by her children.” That’s certainly not talking about justification by imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
1 Corinthians 7:14 ~ “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
This seems even more blatant than the previous example. Unbelieving spouses in their state of unbelief are sanctified by their believing spouses, and children are sanctified by one believing parent. Certainly this is an objective sanctification having to do with a formal connection to the church via the spouse/parent. There are several reasonable and realistic applications of this. I think we can be quite certain that an unbeliever is not justified and sanctified via imputation from Christ, and yet it’s quite clear that the mere objective connection of the unbeliever to the institution via a spouse grants sanctification. Somehow, that unbelieving spouse is holy in the state of unbelief. The same goes for the children. Not every child born to Christian grows up to be a persevering Christian, and yet they are declared to be sanctified for no reason other than their objective connection to the institution by a believing parent. I think this really does show there is a way of talking about justification and sanctification and adoption and so forth with reprobates and apostates in view that is consistent with scriptural uses of this sort of language. I get the impression that the use of “new life” terminology is the same story.
Hebrews 6:4-8 ~ “For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.”
Enlightened. Tasted the heavenly gift. Shared in the Holy Spirit. Tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come. But bears thorns and thistles. Is worthless and near to being cursed. To be burned. That’s a strong contrast – a very deep fall from a very lofty place. The opening language speaks with some sense of individual significance. Enlightenment (referring to baptism according to some) and the heavenly gift (referring to the Supper according to some) are definitely not helping this apostate in the long run. These blessing (and they are rightly labeled as blessing as we see them with our own eyes) are the rain falling on this useless soil. The time these apostates spent in the church was a good thing for them . . . at the time. That season in their lives was new and fresh since they presumably left the carnality of the world to live among the saints. Surely that brought various types of restraint to their sinfulness and that they experienced good things in Christian community (“the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come”). But it wasn’t ultimately good for them. The same blessings (rain) fall on two different types of people (soils), and all the time the same thing is nurturing two different kinds of life (crops and weeds). But it takes time for that soil to sprout. Until it does, all the dirt looks the same.
Please let me know if I’ve not been sufficiently clear on something or if there’s some area I missed that you’d like to hear more about. Thanks for broaching the subject.
Sorry that was so long. I just wanted to get a it out there hoping to be clear the first time.
Chris, yes. Synergism is not the issue. It’s not a “free will” issue. It’s an issue of what the sacraments do by God’s grace to all within the visible church.
Here are three places from whence they get their “common” benefits:
1. From the description of what those who fell away possessed such as in John 15.
2. From the baptismal texts such as Rom. 6 and Gal. 3, which they believe describe common benefits, i.e., they believe union with Christ’s death and resurrection and adoption as described in those passages are benefits common to the entire visible church.
3. As you can see from Wilkins’ reply to the 9 declarations, they also believe that the warning passages indicate that the benefits ascribed to the church such as saints, beloved of God, forgiven, etc. in passages like Eph. 1, 1 Cor. 6, and elsewhere describe benefits that are common to the visible church.
Chris, just to reiterate on their understanding of those common benefits in their reading of the passages Wes mentioned, they would note that there is a qualitative difference between what justification, sanctification, adoption, and so forth are for the elect and the reprobate in the covenant. And that difference seems to revolve around matters of subjectivity vs. objectivity, individual vs. corporate, and the ends toward which the common benefits are being worked.
Wes, was that your understanding of them as well? It seemed to be up above.
Thanks,
Aaron
Aaron, a couple of replies to your 10:53 a.m. comment.
1. I think your second paragraph is in error. FV is not saying that the benefits in the baptismal texts are applied by the judgment of charity (they often specifically repudiate that notion). They believe they are common benefits. That is clear from Wilkins’ statement. He says that the justification and sanctification are common benefits. I could multiply examples of this a thousand times over. They are not asserting that these are merely a “corporate” sense or “by a judgment of charity.” They are describing the common benefits.
2. The question is not whether we can ascribe to all in the visible church what belongs only to the invisible church by a judgment of charity. We all agree on this point. The question is what can we ascribe to all in fact and in truth. That is the nub of the issue.
3. I do not agree with your summation of my views.
4. Tipping my hand a bit, the question was not whether or not you could apply some of the terms of the ordo salutis to the reprobate in a different sense than the Confession. The question am I asking is precisely this: if you say the benefits are different, is that sufficient? Is there a way that you could describe the benefits given to the reprobate that would be heterodox, even if one says they are qualitatively different than the benefits received by the elect? If you say, “no,” then the FV is orthodox. If you say, “yes,” then it is not sufficient to say that there is a qualitative difference. That’s my question. What are the specific ways, if any, in which a qualitative difference in the benefits of the visible and invisible church could be described that would be heterodox?
I hope I am making myself clear. I understand that this is not as easy as simply saying that they get the same benefits for a time and then lose them.
Aaron,
Why is “washed” reasonably understood as baptism?
Aaron (in your reply to the 11:04 a.m. comment), I don’t think the first two help us very much. What we are discussing is what benefits the individual members of the visible church receive. The common benefits, from the quotes I provide above, are benefits that belong to each member of the visible church by baptism. To call them corporate rather than individual seems to move us toward less clarity rather than more, since the question is about what all individuals in the visible church receive. Second, subjective versus objective is not helpful, since we are talking about the benefits that individuals objectively possess. The elect objectively possess the special benefits. The non-elect baptized possess their temporary justification objectively and then lose it.
I think the last distinction is basically what Leithart said in the citation I quoted above. Lusk said the same thing. But the question is still, is there any way of describing qualitatively different benefits to the reprobate that would still be heterodox?
A brief response:
Your description may be accurate, Wes. I’ve always believed though, and continue to believe, that this creative terminology is “a distinction without a difference.” The pervasive use of identical terms with alternate meanings confirms that FV is an aberrant theology made out of whole cloth, teeming with assertions that make the Bible contradict itself throughout. It exists only in the mind of the FV advocate, hence the continual use of that ultimate greased-pig phrase “in some sense,” impossible to define precisely or to understand clearly. Federal Vision theology is a witches’ brew made up of various body parts from Calvinism, Arminiansim, Lutheranism, high-church Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism.
(So there. Doug Wilson is not the only writer who can mix and stir a bunch of unrelated metaphors in a single paragraph.)
Frank, so your position is this: the qualitative difference is so similar that it is virtually a distinction without a difference. Am I understanding you correctly? In other words, the forgiveness of sins of sins that the reprobate receive temporarily is so similar to the forgiveness of sins that the elect receive forever are so similar in time so that what the FV asserts the non-elect get is virtually an assertion that they get the “saving” or “special” benefits only for a time. This would be in line with what Leithart said about the elect being the only ones who “finally” receive these benefits. Isn’t that what you are saying? Thanks.
Good afternoon Aaron
I Cor 7:14 is an objective statement regardless if baptism occurs. In Heb 6:4-6 you want to insert sacramental thoughts into the text, but it is missing in the text and context. I Cor 6:9-12 is a judgment of charity rather than a statement about the benefits of the visible church.
I think the part of division between the two camps deals with the subject of baptism. FV proponents emphasize the benefits of the visible church are tied to the moment of Baptism, while the R&P emphasize the benefits at the moment of conception and baptism is a public declaration of what is true as a result of conception.
Both sides agree the reprobates in hell who spent time in the visible church will experience greater condemnation. The greater condemnation is a result of the privileges they squandered as a result of being a member of the visible church. The one who read the Bible and never was in church faces a greater condemnation than one who never read the Bible. Would you make the same statements about those who read the Bible as you do with those who are baptized and yet end up in hell?
I seriously doubt you want to hitch a wagon to that question; however, with respect to the preaching and sacraments you want to assign a (temporal) benefit even if it is not received by (saving) faith.
I have a high view of the Sacraments but I do not think it is proper to assign temporal benefits to those who do not have faith.
I hope this is helpful.
Wes, this is one of your best and most productive posts I have ever read. I think you have both summarized FV views in a way that those who hold them will actually recognize themselves (an almost impossible task) and yet at the same time isolated the points which are confessionally problematic.
So, yes, I do think the points you identify are confessionally problematic. And I suspect, despite the rhetoric, that FV folks know this. Why else would they talk so much about the need to appeal to scripture over against the standards, and why would they talk so much about the need to rework the confession in so many key areas? Which is it? They are in accord with and affirm the standards? Or they want to change the standards? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
One thing I would add is that the FV controversy isn’t really just about sacraments and sola fide, and I think this is what gives it its staying power. The folks promoting the FV have embraced a theological vision that intersects many other areas of theology where they are not being directly challenged (by this I mean that there is a connection between their denial of the invisible/visible church distinction and their tendency to postmillenialism, their tendency to some flavor of Constantinianism, etc.). I think one of the reasons that some in the PCA are slower to condemn the FV than they might otherwise be is that they are sympathetic with one of these other aspects (e.g. postmillenialism or the overlap between church and state), and they subconsciously value these politic-laden categories more than spiritual ones like justification. I don’t think any of that is conscious or provable, it is just personal speculation regarding subconscious motivations.
Bottom line is that I think some otherwise confessional Presbyterians find FV folks to be partners in the culture wars and so are willing to overlook the theological differences/fuzziness. And I think that many PCA folks are not theologically savvy enough to pick up on this because they don’t read Milbank, are unfamiliar with Radical Orthodoxy, can’t see how these matters relate to the FV, and are generally sheltered by the lousy seminary education offered at the institutions that predominantly feed the PCA…
Dean, I don’t think that helps. Of course, there are benefits to being part of the visible church that every individual possesses.
Obviously, to say that the benefits of the visible church and the invisible church are the same is contrary to the Standards. The question is this: is saying that there qualitative differences between the common and special benefits a sufficient way to make this distinction? Is there any way that you could describe that qualitative difference that would still be heterodox?
John, thanks for your reply. I don’t want to get onto the culture wars topic here, but I think that’s worth thinking about.
However, would you mind sharing why you think the distinctions they make are still confessionally problematic?
Thanks, Wes
Kyle,
I think it’s reasonable for “washed” to point at baptism in this context (though not necessarily so) since it would be consistent with Paul doing so more explicitly in analogous contexts (e.g. baptism linked with death, resurrection, and union with Christ in Romans 6, baptism linked to new life in Colossians 2, baptism as clothing in Christ in Galatians 3, etc). And Paul (quoting Ananias) connects baptism with washing in Acts 22:16, even using the same word (apolouo) there as in 1 Corinthians 6:11.
Based on the proof-texts they offered in WCF 28 on baptism, the Westminster Assembly regarded other water and washing terminology as baptismal language such as “washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5), “washing of water by the word” (Ephesians 5:26), and “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5). It seems to me like it’s a standard Reformed approach to take water and washing language and connect it with baptism.
Blessings,
Aaron
Wes: to pick up on Frank’s observation of a “distinction without a difference” we must include the general tendency of the FV men to discount the Visible-Invisible Church scheme as a valid manner of describing the Church.
Giving the most charity as possible to their arguments, it seems to me that only a few outright deny this scheme. Yet the others who are willing to acknowledge it nevertheless discount it. In other words, they acknowledge something that exists theoretically but has not relevance or usage.
This discounting of the VC-IC scheme accounts for the fact of Frank’s observation. According to the FV all we can see, all we can know is the visible state of things. We cannot know the invisible state of things. Accordingly, the decretal ordo salutis of course exists. But as we do not operate in that realm, this way of considering the Christian life is meaningless. All we can do is operate in the covenantal, the visible realm. I.OW., we can only speak covenantally.
Thus, distinguishing between decretal vs. covenantal benefits becomes meaningless (Frank’s observation). Even the individual is relegated to an experience of faith in which the visible dominates. This is where faithfulness (i.e., a modified doctrine of perseverance) becomes key in the FV system. Exercising it is the only way the Christian can live the Christian life.
Wes, (cf. comment @ 11:19)
I may not be using the terms “subjective” and “objective” correctly. My understanding or use of “subjective” was to refer to internal doings in an individual and things with just the individual in view; my use of “objective” was to refer to external doing upon an individual and things with the individual viewed in light of association with the group. I guess that’s all the more I do or can mean by it. If certain FV representatives mean something else, I don’t know and can’t say.
“. . . is there any way of describing qualitatively different benefits to the reprobate that would still be heterodox?”
Oh, that’s a tough one. I suppose their could be, but it might end up being in an area other than soteriology.
Wes, (cf. comment 11:07)
Leaving aside whether or not it’s the FV position (if there is a singular one of those), would you consider my second paragraph back up there to be biblically and confessionally correct on it’s own terms? I want to a least make sure I’ve got the right idea in mind.
I guess if these FV people aren’t talking about what I’m talking about, then I have no idea what they mean by “common benefits”. That’s been my understanding of what they were talking about and seemed to be the case after I had asked a few of them for clarification.
You commented: “Is there a way that you could describe the benefits given to the reprobate that would be heterodox, even if one says they are qualitatively different than the benefits received by the elect? If you say, “no,” then the FV is orthodox. If you say, “yes,” then it is not sufficient to say that there is a qualitative difference. That’s my question. What are the specific ways, if any, in which a qualitative difference in the benefits of the visible and invisible church could be described that would be heterodox?”
Okay, I think I see what you’re saying or asking. Yes, that does seem to be the central question, and I’m not sure how to answer it. At least not on anyone else’s behalf. I guess if they’re being described as qualitatively different, are they really the same benefits in their application, or just look the same externally and come under the same name?
Yeah, sorry, I realize now the culture wars component could sidetrack the thread…I would love to see you do a follow up discussion on that at some point, though. Sorry, also, for the potshot at the PCA feeder seminaries. I’ll save further comments on that one for the hoped for culture wars thread.
Regarding the problematic confessional issues…
In my opinion no significant tension with the standards is created by affirming a number of categories of “grace” for the unregenerate or reprobate. So there is no prima facie problem with stating that reprobate members of the visible church are the beneficiaries of grace in some sense. For one thing, Reprobate members of the visible church experience God’s common grace (the rain falls on the elect and the non-elect, etc.), but this is not really what FV folks get hot and bothered about. More apropos, Reprobate members of the visible church also experience the means of grace through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. But this is not really controversial either – everybody affirms this.
The problem comes when FV folks want to affirm that their experience of the means of grace is a gracious BENEFIT to the Reprobate. In fact, the opposite is the case (WCF 27.3, only those that worthily partake benefit). The preached word and the sacraments received by the Reprobate actually condemn them. Is this related to grace? Sure. Is it a benefit? Hardly. WLC 63 seems to adequately describe the “benefits” of membership in the visible church for the reprobate….not much.
Leaving my culture wars speculation aside for the time being, the other bogey worth calling attention to is the wooden biblicism that leads FV folks to make the affirmations that they make. It reminds me of the ridiculous discussion about how sanctification as a theological category can’t be progressive because the Greek word group is always used in a definitive sense. This is a classic example of the word-thing fallacy. I would argue that the FV folks take the word-thing fallacy (in tandem with a typological exegesis that would make Origen blush) and make it their guiding exegetical hermeneutic…
“It says ‘union,’ so…”
“It doesn’t say ‘work’ or ‘merit,’ so…”
“It doesn’t say ‘invisible church,’ so…”
[Sigh]
Regarding the biblicism of the FV folks, here’s this gem from Richard Hooker:
“When they and their Bibles were alone together, what strange fantastical opinion soever at any time entered into their heads, their use was to think the Spirit taught it them.” ~ Richard Hooker (from the preface to his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity)
Hi Dean, (cf. comment 11:38)
I agree with you descriptions of 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and 7:14. That’s how I take them as well. As for Heb. 6:4-6 and the sacraments, I’m not strongly claiming they’re there; others have. Right off the top of my head, I know that Michael Horton said exactly that in “God of Promise”. I’ve actually wanted to find more information on that. Although it’s not explicitly there, I think it’s reasonable to view participation in the sacraments as something generally in line with the sorts of things being talked about in the passage that amount to greater condemnation.
On other things, I may not have been clear. Let me reply to a few of your statements:
“Would you make the same statements about those who read the Bible as you do with those who are baptized and yet end up in hell? I seriously doubt you want to hitch a wagon to that question; however, with respect to the preaching and sacraments you want to assign a (temporal) benefit even if it is not received by (saving) faith. I have a high view of the Sacraments but I do not think it is proper to assign temporal benefits to those who do not have faith.”
I would say that someone could read the Bible and think all the theology and so forth is junk but for whatever reason sees some wisdom in some of the commandments, proverbs, etc. and embraces them. He learned this stuff from the Bible, and his life will probably be better by him not killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, etc. But in the end, he will go to hell, and the stuff he chose to disregard becomes all the more condemnatory to him. Is that what you thought I meant, or was it something else? I guess I’m looking at the sacraments (and really more at life in general participating in the Christian community) in the same sort of way. Does that make more sense? You might not call such things benefits; I’m not sure. If it’s really a benefit or not is a tricky thing to say since it ends up being a curse.
Thanks,
Aaron
Wes,
I can agree with your assessment, which I’ll copy here: “Frank, so your position is this: the qualitative difference is so similar that it is virtually a distinction without a difference. Am I understanding you correctly? In other words, the forgiveness of sins that the reprobate receive temporarily is so similar to the forgiveness of sins that the elect receive forever are so similar in time so that what the FV asserts the non-elect get is virtually an assertion that they get the “saving” or “special” benefits only for a time.”
Because these two, parallel sets of blessings never will be established from Scripture, FV writers can appear nearly heroic in their attempts to describe the distinction between them. At some level, you’ve got to admire their cleverness, which would make the most abstruse scholastic c. 1300 green with envy. Hence the constant use of all-purpose qualifiers such as “covenantal,” “decretal,” “objective,” and “in a sense.” Thus, you have a union with Christ that’s not exactly like the union enjoyed by the “decretally elect,” a justification that will be lost (hence the discomfort at times with imputation — are sin and righteousness really imputed one moment, then not imputed the next?), an adoption of sorts that leads to final estrangement and damnation, a sanctification that’s more than “setting apart for service” but is not a permanent renewal of the heart.
But — and here’s one of the fatal flaws of the Federal Vision as I see it — these “blessings” enjoyed by the “decretally non-elect,” if they’re to be real, objective blessings, must seem substantially like, or exactly alike, their counterparts. Hence, it’s more honest simply to affirm, “In baptism everyone gets it all, but the decretally non-elect lose it all.” That, however, is just baptismal regeneration on the front end and pure Arminianism on the back end, and no FV writer wants to go there.
It’s always a sad sight when someone tries time and again to accomplish the impossible. The FV attempt to split into parts what is a perfect unity in Scripture may be the saddest sight of all. Try as hard as they may, the FV distinctions fail every time. The reason why the entire project will always look like “a distinction without a difference” is, well, because there can be no difference, and the distinction is merely illusory.
I believe that Questions 63 and 65 of the Westminster Larger Catechism remain a perfectly adequate summary of Biblical revelation:
Q63: What are the special privileges of the visible church?
A63: The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government;of being protected and preserved in all ages, not withstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.
Q65: What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
A65: The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.
(NOTE: My purpose in these posts is to focus on broad principles and the “big picture.” There are others with bigger guns than mine who are much better at the details.)
Hi Aaron
“Is that what you thought I meant, or was it something else? I guess I’m looking at the sacraments (and really more at life in general participating in the Christian community) in the same sort of way. Does that make more sense? You might not call such things benefits; I’m not sure. If it’s really a benefit or not is a tricky thing to say since it ends up being a curse.”
I am very comfortable with saying those in the visible church have advantages. I am very uncomfortable saying that everyone in the church enjoys election, adoption, forgiveness of sins, and justification. The qualification “in some sense” does not relieve any consternation on my part, I still think it confusing at best and should be avoided until someone can define these things in greater detail.
If I was being examined as an elder at your church and you as an elder ask me “do you believe in particular atonement?” Would you be concerned if I responded by Yes, “I believe in particular atonement for the elect, but ‘in some sense’ Christ died for all men? When you asked to clarify what I meant by “in some sense”, I confessed I have not given much thought, but quoted all the Arminian text which” disproved” particular atonement. I then added Jesus provided something on the cross for the non elect more than what the Reformed position acknowledges in the Confessions. When you challenge me more, I respond, “I agree with the Confession on election because the confession limit its scope to the elect only, and I am allowed to believe Christ provided some atoning benefit “in some sense” to them reprobate.
I think this analogy is very close to what is happening with respect to FV controversy now. I hope this analogy helps you understand why I have a problem with those who teach the FV.
Aaron (12:36), until it is settled whether or not there is a wrong way to describe benefits given to the non-elect that are qualitatively different than that which the elect receive, then really is no reason to discuss further. If no, then the FV is fine. If yes, then we have to say what it is and then compare the FV to it.
(12:19) Read the Wilkins letter again. He is not saying that the justification and sanctification are benefits applied to the reprobate by a judgment of charity. He is saying that these are benefits that the non-elect actually receive by baptism. However, he says that these are qualitatively different from the justification and sanctification received for the elect which is the only thing (in Wilkins’ view) that the Confession is discussing.
Hi Dean,
“I am very comfortable with saying those in the visible church have advantages. I am very uncomfortable saying that everyone in the church enjoys election, adoption, forgiveness of sins, and justification. The qualification “in some sense” does not relieve any consternation on my part, I still think it’s confusing at best and should be avoided until someone can define these things in greater detail.”
I agree with you. I personally wouldn’t (and don’t) use that sort of theological language in irregular ways in casual contexts. Only in a discussion on these very issues and making myself abundantly clear. I certainly prefer to talk about things using terminology that’s normal in the context it’s being used.
I agree with your particular redemption analogy. To talk about some sort of atonement for a sub-group of the non-elect that is “more than what the Reformed position acknowledges in the Confessions” and yet not the atonement for the elect, and not be able to specify what that is would be a definite problem and a red flag. I can understand that. And hence why we want to get to the bottom of it.
Well, if FV ringleaders aren’t being clear, at least I hope I am.
Thanks,
Aaron
Wes, I see your point on the definitional roadblock. Have you considered formulating that succinctly and submitting it to some of the FV guys? Or have you done so already?
Hi Aaron.
Thank you for your brotherly tone and your acknowledgement there is at least an issue of clarity at stake.
As one who is sympathetic to FV ringleaders what issue(s) do you believe are commonly misunderstood or ignored by the critics of the FV?
That’s very helpful, Dean. I hadn’t thought of applying “in some sense” to doctrines not usually on the FV battlefield. Come to think of it, you can come up with a parallel system for any doctrine. Just say that particular texts use the same terms but teach different content, and that they supplement but do not contradict the Confession and Catechisms. Pour over it all the syrup called “in a sense,” and you have something entirely new — well, kind of.
Those with whom I’ve discussed similar issues have stated that they believe that the WS says that they get “common benefits” but that beyond that, the WS do not specify what the reprobate receive and don’t receive (besides not getting the eternally saving benefits the elect get). So, I think they have already answered the question. The statements by Leithart and Wilkins also indicate that this is their view.
Aaron, I’d still like to hear your answer. Is there a way to describe the qualitatively different benefits that the non-elect receive contrary to the Confession?
I’d still be interested in other people’s answer to that question. I still don’t feel like we’ve nailed it down.
Wes,
If my analysis is correct, there is no answer to your question, because there are in reality no “qualitatively different benefits that the non-elect receive contrary to the Confession.” (I assume that by “contrary” you mean similar to but different — here we go again — “in some sense.”)
The problem is, of course, that Federal Vision writers seem to be consistent in asserting that there are objective benefits (“blessings”) that the non-elect receive that go beyond the “special privileges” of the visible church in LC 63. As we’ve seen, terms like justification, adoption, union, and sanctification are forced to do double duty. Apparently it’s impossible to pin down, however, precisely what these other benefits are. (“Having your cake and eating it, too” is a trite expression to describe this phenomenon, but I can’t think of a better one at the moment.)
Earlier this week, I reread my correspondence from 2002 with a Teaching Elder who embraced Federal Vision and is no longer in the PCA. The following quotation will illustrate the confusion (you’ll have to trust me that it’s not taken out of context):
“At baptism we are really and truly joined to Christ in covenant (“united to Christ by the Spirit”) and have delivered over to us all the promises and privileges of the covenant. These are really ours and belong to us. But they must be received and embraced by faith.
That which distinguishes the baptised elect from the baptised reprobate is not their standing or the promises that belong to them but persevering faith. It is he that endures to the end who will be saved. The baptised reprobate who believes for a while or who never believes at all, will lose all the privileges and blessings that were his in the covenant— like Israel of old.
Thus, the branches that were cut off were not differentiated by their standing (i.e. being in the vine) but by the fact that the fruitless branches did not abide in Christ. If we abide in Him then are we His disciples indeed. It is the one who continues in faith, who perseveres in the grace of God, the one who perseveres to the end, who is saved. The distinctive mark of the elect (i.e. the mark that we can see) is perseverance. The reprobate are never given the new heart and thus will never persevere— though Jesus says that some may believe for a while.
Clearly, the reprobate do not partake of the blessings and benefits of the covenant in the same way or in the same measure as the elect, but just as clearly, they do have an objective standing that can be described as having been cleansed, purchased, forgiven which were sealed by baptism and lost by their unbelief.
Now, none of this infringes upon salvation by grace alone through faith alone— it is seeking to deal with the Scriptures which speak of apostates actually having these things and giving them up or losing them. In no way does it undermine evangelicalism or the Reformed faith — though it very plainly undermines baptistic individualism, Zwinglianism, and nominalism.”
As far as I know, Federal Vision writers have not advanced much beyond this in the past nine years. I don’t know whether to declare the above passage hopeless confusion, self-delusion, or both. Through baptism, wonderful blessings are received without regeneration — but none of them lasts. Yet exactly the same terms are used that denote permanent blessings and benefits in the “full” salvific sense. The reprobate “are never given the new heart,” yet “they do have an objective standing that can be described as having been cleansed, purchased, forgiven which were sealed by baptism and lost by their unbelief.” Precisely what is this cleansing that the reprobate possess? Exactly what has been purchased for them? Which of their sins have been forgiven, and to what extent?
What a mess.
Pastor White
“Is there a way to describe the qualitatively different benefits that the non-elect receive contrary to the Confession?”
I believe the answer to your question deals with properly exegeting Heb 6:4-6 especially the phrases 1.) in the case of those who have once been enlightened 2.) who have tasted the heavenly gift 3.) and have shared in the Holy Spirit 4.) and then have fallen away 5.) to restore them again to repentance. I know you have dealt with this text in detail before, but can you summarize what these phrases mean positively?
Asked differently, do you think a positive exegesis of the above phrases incorporate the totality of the items included in LC # 63 or would the exegesis would add to the list?
Wes,
I believe that your assessment in the post is an accurate representation of the FV views on the subjects addressed. As you know, this is nothing new. You and many of us have refuted these errors on our blogs, etc., for some years now. Neither Scripture nor the Westminsters acknowledge a parallel soteriology for the baptized reprobates as advocated by FV – even if they dislike the term “parallel soteriology”.
As Frank clearly states, WLC #63 and 65 cover the ground very well. If the divines, and hence Scripture, had acknowledged near-saving grace for reprobates with wet heads, they would have written so. I have long appreciated the comprehensiveness of our Standards in regard to soteriology in particular, carefully stating and clarifying each doctrine from Scripture.
Honestly, I had a longer post in mind but Dean and Frank are doing so well, I’ll defer to them as I have a Session meeting tonight. But I’ll close with this – if FVers really think that Scripture contains a parallel near-soteriology for reprobates with wet heads, and therefore the Standards would be deficient in that case, let’s see their proposed changes to the Standards submitted through channels to the GA for a vote. There’s a BCO process for that. The fact that no one has tells me all I need to know about their destructive game.
Hi Wes,
Sorry, I thought I had pointed at some sort of answer, or my inablity to give one (11:04, my misunderstanding of your summary being my own understanding on the matter; 12:08, last paragraph expressing uncertainty; 12:19, last paragraph expressing more uncertainty), but I’ll give it a try.
Original Form (11:07) ~ “The question I am asking is precisely this: if you say the benefits are different, is that sufficient? Is there a way that you could describe the benefits given to the reprobate that would be heterodox, even if one says they are qualitatively different than the benefits received by the elect? If you say, “no,” then the FV is orthodox. If you say, “yes,” then it is not sufficient to say that there is a qualitative difference. That’s my question. What are the specific ways, if any, in which a qualitative difference in the benefits of the visible and invisible church could be described that would be heterodox?”
“Is there a way to describe the qualitatively different benefits that the non-elect receive contrary to the Confession?” My short answer would be a hesitant no. “What are the specific ways, if any, in which a qualitative difference in the benefits of the visible and invisible church could be described that would be heterodox?” Again, hesitantly, there are none. My first reason for that answer is something Frank said earlier: “these two, parallel sets of blessings never will be established from Scripture” (12:47, second paragraph). If it’s not even specified in Scripture, there’s no information to know what’s othrodox and what’s not. That this would be something not covered in the WS is okay. That’s something not covered in Scripture is quirky and kind of pointless. I suppose it might be a concern about adding to the word of God, if it’s something that’s not there.
This, of course, assumes that what I’ve described as my own personal view (10:53, 11:04; 12:08) is what you’ve describe as a judgment of charity (11:07) and “benefits” that are really curses, and that my view is not what FV is saying. I’ve always read what they’ve said as referring to what I’ve said on the subject. If they’ve meant something else or more than that, I hadn’t picked up on that. I don’t really see this idea of a category of benefits, unless it’s the temporary blessings or a grade of grace that’s more than what every single human being enjoys (e.g. a bare minimum existence) and less than what the elect enjoy (e.g. eternal salvation) like I described to Dean earlier (12:36 last paragraph). Now, if that’s the case, then the short answer to the original question is a possible yes. And I don’t think that particular discinction would be heterodox.
If I’m still missing some aspect of the question, please continue to ask. I want to try to provide a satisfactory answer.
Blessings,
Aaron
As to whether or not it’s a “parallel soteriology”, that will depend how strictly we’re talking about salvation (the scriptural use of the term). If we’re talking about the whole package deal of saving the elect and ushering them into eternal glory, then it’s not a parallel soteriology; nothing specific to that process overlaps with what the non-elect in the visible church get. If we’re talking about “salvation” in a sense like how Israel was saved out of Egypt or how faith saved various people from their illnesses, etc., then it would seem there some level of parallel and overlap that the elect and non-elect within the visible church share.
Hi Dean,
On the matter of misunderstandings (1:47), I don’t know if I’m sufficiently well informed to comment. Most of what has gotten my attention and stirred my thoughts has been the way in which this ongoing dispute has been conducted. I suppose I stepped into the picture midstream. I didn’t even come into the R&P world until January 2009, and I’ve been playing catch-up and doing a lot of retroactive study since then trying to figure out where things are now and see what they were back then.
Aaron
Aaron,
Does saving someone from a burning car fit into soteriology? How extensible is that definition? It has had a clear meaning for at least 2,000 years of Christian theology. Here’s Webster’s definition:
“theology dealing with salvation especially as effected by Jesus Christ”
If FV grants reprobates with wet heads to: “…enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short of the grace of God. (The Federal Vision (Monroe, Louisiana: Athanasius Press, 2004), “Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation” on page 62), that sounds like a parallel soteriology to me. And not just me, but seven orthodox, Reformed denominations.
Aaron (3:10), that’s a false dilemma. You are acting as if those are the only definitions of salvation.
RM,
“Does saving someone from a burning car fit into soteriology? How extensible is that definition?”
Does that example fit under soteriology? Defined as specialize subcategory of Christian theology, no, saving someone from a burning car doesn’t fit very well there. Were you able to use the word “saving” in a sentence (not meaning eternal redemption from sin, etc.) and I know you meant something else? Yes.
Sure. Fine. The dictionary gives you ONE definition for salvation, but there are more:
sal·va·tion [sal-vey-shuhn] noun
1. the act of saving or protecting from harm, risk, loss, destruction, etc.
2. the state of being saved or protected from harm, risk, etc.
3. a source, cause, or means of being saved or protected from harm, risk, etc.
4. theology. deliverance from the power and penalty of sin; redemption.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/salvation
This has been the case in our language and in the ancient language – semantic range. The Bible has a wider semantic range for salvation terminology than some parts of subsequent specialized Christian theology.
Taking that quote you offered and going back to the broader topic in this conversation, it’s not a parallel soteriology (in you seemingly preferred restrictive use of the word, which I normally reserve it for as well, but we’re talking about other people’s disparate vocabulary here). If FV means a set of things qualitatively different (as is the question) for the non-elect than the elect but having the same names, then they’re not sharing in the same thing, which brings us back to the beginning again.
Wes (3:35), sure, and there are more definitions still (me, 3:43). Is a “parallel soteriology” what FV is trying to get at, or is that a boogyman term?
And, sure, that might be another false dichotomy as well. I accept that there are further options.
Aaron (3:03), if you think that the “common” benefits are only things that they think they get by a judgment of charity, then you do not agree with the way I’ve set up the debate.
Wilkins and Leithart are saying that they “possess” these things. Wilkins specifically repudiates the view that you are describing in his response to the 9 declarations. To Wilkins, 1 Cor. 6 describes the “common” benefits and not the “special” benefits.
Well, then I’m not FV in my thinking. I must be Reformed orthodox, and I’ve read these fellows with corrective theological glasses on my eyes and have missed whatever they’ve been getting at. I don’t know what else to say. I’ve never read any of Wilkins’ stuff specifically; I’ve only listened to that moderated conference call you had with him. I don’t know if all the big FV players are completely consistent from one to the next on this.
I think parallel soteriology is the answer that the Presbytery and Reformed denominations have given to their evaluation of what FV is doing. FV men do not like the term “parallel soteriological system” that is obvious. It is also obvious that the PR are not accusing the FV men of saying that the non-elect get the eternal salvation system. That is precisely not what PR men are saying. In fact, I would say that to act as if they are is just dishonesty on the part of anyone who would say such a thing.
What we are referring to is this. Salvation can refer to salvation unto eternal glory or it can refer to being saved out of a state of sin and misery and brought into a state of grace. What the PR denominations have accused them of saying is that what they describe the non-elect getting through baptism amounts to a parallel soteriological system, i.e., bringing them out of a state of sin and misery and into a state of grace but then falling back into a state of sin and misery. That is the precise issue. I know that FV men do not like this, but this is what the PR denominations hear them saying.
So, really the question is something like this. Does the qualitative difference between the elect and non-elect still amount to the non-elect being saved out of a state of sin and misery and into a state of salvation (albeit one that can be lossed).
Now, I know, Aaron, that you are going to say no, so don’t answer that question unless you answer this one first. Can there be a parallel soteriological system such as I have described that is contrary to the Standards?
Aaron (3:56).
1. Actually, I think they are very consistent on the points I’ve listed.
2. In that conversation with Wilkins, and I said just what I said here. He told me that I did understand his view.
3. Here’s what the Joint Federal Vision Profession says:
Now, again, we all agree that there are common benefits and that there are special benefits. My point is simply that the common benefits in both cases are things that the non-elect actually possess. In our case, we are referring to a special benefit when we say that were sinners (of various sorts) but that we were washed, justified, and sanctified in the name of Christ Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. Wilkins believes this is a benefit common to the visible church as is evident from the document I cited. It seems fairly common for the FV to apply 1 Cor. 6:11 as a benefit of the visible church.
To add some clarity to what folks mean by a parallel soteriological system, here’s Wilkins again on the benefits to the reprobate with wet heads:
“The elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect-they are cut off from the Elect One and thus, lose their elect standing. But their falling away doesn’t negate the reality of their standing prior to their apostasy. They were really and truly the elect of God because of their relationship with Christ. (Wilkins in “Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation”)”.
I couldn’t make this stuff up.
Hi Wes,
“Now, I know, Aaron, that you are going to say no, so don’t answer that question unless you answer this one first. Can there be a parallel soteriological system such as I have described that is contrary to the Standards?”
Actually, I don’t really have much to say – nothing to rebut or qualify or complicate or refute what you’re saying. I have no objection to what you’re saying. I’m pretty sure I understand it, and I understand and concur with the seriousness of it.
Can there be a parallel soteriological system the way you described it? No, it would be deeply contrary to our confessional standards, which is to say I believe it would be contrary to Scripture. “Does the qualitative difference between the elect and non-elect still amount to the non-elect being saved out of a state of sin and misery and into a state of salvation (albeit one that can be lost)?” Well, no. I personally say no, just as you surmised. No, not given the way we normally use those various words. Really, just unqualified no. Would FV persons say yes? From what you’re describing, it sounds like yes. So I wouldn’t be agreeing with them.
Ugh, my head is just swimming in circles with this. Every time I hope it’s going to be simple, it becomes so deeply complicated again. Do you have any sort of advice and words of comfort and consolation that you could offer me?
Blessings,
Aaron
>>If they later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect-they are cut off from the Elect One and thus, lose their elect standing. But their falling away doesn’t negate the reality of their standing prior to their apostasy. They were really and truly the elect of God because of their relationship with Christ.
I have to say that if this is an accurate quote it is easily the most damning thing I’ve seen from an FV man. Did he ever repudiate this?
Aaron, how about this? Better men than you have struggled with this for years.:)
What? Are you saying I’m not that good a man?
Just kidding. I know what you mean.
Thanks, Wes. Especially for the smiley.
Aaron
“Ugh, my head is just swimming in circles with this. Every time I hope it’s going to be simple, it becomes so deeply complicated again. Do you have any sort of advice and words of comfort and consolation that you could offer me?”
Allow me to be so bold as to make a suggestion to someone I do not even know. I suggest you step back away from this controversy for a little while and study in detail one heresy in church history to gain some perspective and understand how all controversies have proof passages. I am certain a saint living in the 4th century confessed to his neighbor that his head is just swimming in circles with the Arian heresy.
I am not suggesting AT ALL that the FV error is on par with the Arian heresy. But by studying a heresy with out the emotion of the day I am able to sympathize greatly with the heretics and their proof passages. I am struck with how knit picky it appears the church fathers were with each heretic because each of their their cases on the surface had the appearance of being so compelling. It is only when one digs deeper one understand why the cranky critic are convinced the truth of the gospel was at stake.
When the Wilkins trial was in full swing I read his defense and was very sympathetic to his plight. I read his response to his critics and was compelled by his arguments even though I would have classified myself as ultra conservative. I did not know Wilkins from Adam, but recognized some of the critics names and respected then because I viewed them as conservative, yet I still thought the whole issue was a tempest in a tea pot.
During the last three days you demonstrated humility when admonished by a blog administrator. That is a rare thing even on the Christian blogosphere. You have honestly interacted with people with an opposing view point and admitted you have learned where they are coming from. This is an even rarer trait on the Christian blogosphere. These spiritual strengths will serve you very well in your desire to “get to the bottom of it.”
God Bless
David,
“I have to say that if this is an accurate quote it is easily the most damning thing I’ve seen from an FV man. Did he ever repudiate this?”
As for accuracy, it’s right out of his essay for which I provided the citation. AFAIK, he has never repudiated it. Kinda explains why he quickly bolted for the CREC as the charges against him were being drafted.
I will bear that in mind, Dean. Thank you.
Hi Wes,
Thank you for your clear taxonomy of the FV positions.
In answer to your question above, yes, I think there’s a problem with the FV position on “common benefits.” I think that the problem has to do with the Person and work of the Holy Spirit. I haven’t read this position in the comments above.
2 Cor 1:22 describes the Spirit as an “earnest,” a “down payment” on our eternal inheritance. God’s gift of the Spirit is His promise to is that our salvation is real, and that it’s eternal.
Union with Christ, adoption, justification, all involve the work of the Spirit. And the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.
So very simply, I think the Bible clearly describes the above eternal benefits as lasting (and distinguishes them from what the reprobate receive, by calling those external blessings the “common operations” of the Spirit).
You made an important point in another context, Wes, and that is that the Westminster Assembly was writing precisely to address the idea of these “temporary” benefits, which had been wrongly taught by the Roman Catholic Church.
The FV folks saying that the WCF doesn’t address the “common” or “social” benefits that the reprobate receive is just wrong. The WCF does address this issue, and it does so by calling things like justification an eternal benefit.
Wes
“that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Romans 10:9-10
Faith and confession are the two qualifications for enjoying any of the benefits of the visible church. The non-elect do not share in any of the benefits and then lose them. They never had them in the first place. They lack the necessary qualifications.
When we visited the Vatican and St. Peter’s basilica, the body of the former pope was encased in glass on display for visitors to pay their respect. Just because his body was in the church, does that mean he shared in some of the benefits of the visible church? A spiritually dead person in the same way cannot share in any of the benefits of the visible church.
In other words, you can live in a garage all your life, but that will never make you a car.
Well done, Lauren. We can use more “cut to the chase” directness.
Lauren
“Faith and confession are the two qualifications for enjoying any of the benefits of the visible church.”
I believe you mean “invisible church” rather than “visible church”. Correct?
Wes:
It might be useful to add a couple of things for historical perspective, especially in reference to the first 2 paragraphs of your article. Speaking as a participant in the 2003 colloquium, it was clear and acknowledged at the time that the FV advocates were not monolithic in their affirmations, and the men acknowledged differences among themselves. Those differences made the work of communication more difficult and contributed to the challenges you mention. Over time, the differences have largely faded, yielding more consistent and somewhat better communication, though, of course, not a meeting of minds. A second tidbit of interest may be that, at the end of the 2010 colloquium, the FV men expressed appreciation to the critics for the fact that they had been heard and understood. In the weeks and months of discussion that followed, it became clear to us that the sense of having been heard and understood was short-lived. and this was a source of sadness and frustration to the colloquium participants. Again, I offer these observations as a little historical perspective on the first two paragraphs you wrote.
A few other comments … First, in my view, the first 2 points of your closing 4-point summary account for the confusion you identify in the first 2 paragraphs. Second, from where I sit, points 2 and 3 capture the difficulty presented for and by the FV project. When items are given the same names and have many of the same and similar properties, the task of convincingly articulating the qualitative difference between the two items is made virtually impossible. That is, it is one thing to declare that qualitative differences between items exist; it is another thing to describe what those differences are when the items share nomenclature and properties. As to point 4, I might differ with it insofar as I’d want to acknowledge that the FV’s proposal of qualitative differences between common and special benefits was set forth with the goal of being of significant practical and exegetical use.
To all: here is my basic solution to the puzzle I posed yesterday. I do think there are ways in which a qualitative distinction could still be contrary to the Confession:
1. When the specific things one affirms that the reprobate receive are things that the Confession says they do not receive. I have dealt with this more at length here and here. For example, justification is not just a technical eternal type justification in the Standards. If it were, there would be no reason to add the affirmation that it cannot be lost (11.5). It means “forgiveness of sins.” Thus, to affirm that someone gets pardon of sins temporarily is contrary to the Confession. That’s why SJC 2008-14 said that Louisiana Presbytery erred when it did not declare Wilkins’ view that the reprobate get forgiveness of sins in some sense to be a difference with the Standards. Similarly, when someone affirms that the reprobate are taken out of a state of sin and misery, then they are contrary to the Standards because the Standards say that this specific thing happens only to the elect.
2. Along similar lines, we should not take a broad distinction and simply put our categories into it to decide whether or not it is orthodox. We must look at the specifics. Thus, if someone affirms the visible/invisible church distinction but says that the visible church is mystically united to Christ, saved from the wrath of God, and is the bride of Christ, then they have denied the specifics of the distinction, even if their general affirmation is correct.
3. The difference must be distinct enough in order for people to be able to know the difference. The Confession states that people can know they are elect and regenerate on the basis of inward evidence. Thus, if someone says that those who fall away walked with the Lord and loved Him, then they have given a mark of election to the reprobate, for the Confession says, “yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him” can be infallibly of eternal salvation. This collapses the distinction between the elect and non-elect contrary to the Confession.
In sum, the affirmation of a qualitative difference is ambiguous. You can affirm a qualitative difference and affirm that the reprobate get specific things that the Confession reserves only for the elect. Consequently, the distinction is not sufficient in and of itself. Further, it is certainly not sufficient when one affirms that specific benefits go to the reprobate which the Confession assigns only to the elect.
Thank you, Wes. That’s a very helpful summary. I concur.
Thank you, Dr. White.
This entire discussion has been helpful in clarifying the most basic issues of Federal Vision. I’ve thought for years that we tend to get bogged down talking about merit, mono- vs. bi-coventantalism, and the finer points of the New Perspectives on Paul and N. T. Wright. These are very important subjects, but I believe they are best understood in the light of our current subject, “visible church benefits and apostasy.” Once we focus on and understand these matters, the rest will fall into place.
Frank A.: I’m glad to help. Your comment about getting bogged down in the details of the interaction is pretty common, isn’t it? I remember early on, after the colloquium having difficulty, explaining to others what the issues were. Eventually, I found that for some it was useful to refer to what I remember coming from Steve Wilkins, namely, that the FV guys were attempting to identify and articulate a system of interpretation that they saw in Scripture, a system that they meant to stand alongside and not compete the Westminster Standards. (Wes has summarized it very well.) The vast majority in the NAPARC churches hasn’t been convinced.
To all: in my previous comment, I wrote, “A second tidbit of interest may be that, at the end of the 2010 colloquium, the FV men expressed appreciation to the critics … .” Of course, I should have written “as the end of the 2003 colloquium.”
Dean,
I think I mean both. A public confession takes place in a visible church but it should be an expression of an inward invisible spiritual reality. It would seem to me that according to Scripture, you can’t have the one without the other.
Can there be anything that tramples on the blood of Christ more than saying that someone’s sins are forgiven temporarily?
Certainly there can be: saying that the blood of Christ doesn’t forgive sins at all.
I’m struck by Frank A’s previous comment regarding a distinction without a difference. The FV men may posit a parallel soteriological system, but they function as if there is a mono-system. Functionally denying the Visible Chuch-Invisible Church distinction, even the most moderate of them speaks to the baptized in an undifferentiated manner. The Scriptures we think speak only to the elect, they affirm speak both to elect and reprobate.
They cannot help but disciple the sheep in a walk of faith that necessarily involves flesh-fueled perseverance. This is the real danger of the system. It teaches people to walk with God in a manner akin to the Judaizers, the Pharisees, and every other iteration of men who missed/discounted the key distinction between internal and external.
“In sum, the affirmation of a qualitative difference is ambiguous. You can affirm a qualitative difference and affirm that the reprobate get specific things that the Confession reserves only for the elect. Consequently, the distinction is not sufficient in and of itself.”
Nicely put.