Contra Letham on the Covenant of Life

In his Systematic Theology, Robert Letham expresssed humanity in covenant as purely one of grace. Accordingly, Letham denies the Covenant of Works, expressing the fact that God deals with Man only in a gracious manner.

It is of course true that law and grace can be seen as congruous with each other, but only in two senses. One, the Old Testament (law) is congruous with the New Testament (Grace). Secondly, as I have written in my response to David Cheng on the issue (Daniel H Chew, "Response to 'Calvin on Law and Grace," in Daniel H Chew and Jonah Tang, eds, Faith Seeking Understanding - Vol. 2: The Reformation and John Calvin - Proceedings from the 2009 CREDO500 Conference), the law as what one practices is congruous with God's grace. However, there is a third sense in which law and grace (or rather Gospel) is not congruous but diametrically opposed to each other, and one that lies behind the bicovenantal structure of the Reformed tradition. I will call the first sense, the historical sense, Law1 and Grace1. The second sense of practice I will call Law2 and Grace2, and the third sense, the antithetical sense, Law3 and Gospel. Letham embraces the first two senses, but either does not understand or deny the third sense.

On page 356, Letham asserts, citing WCF 7.5, that "grace and law are not competing ways of salvation; they fulfill different functions: grace constitutes, law regulates." In response, it must be stated that in WCF 7.5, "law" and "gospel" was used in the historic sense as signifying the Old and New Testament economies. But what Letham has done is to conflate Law1 with Law3, and conflate Law2 with Law3. Since WCF 7.5 deals with the historical senses, they cannot be used for the other two senses of the terms. Letham's statement basically flirts with Federal Vision, since law even in regulating the Christian life does NOT function as a way of salvation. Compounding his error is the statement that "by extension, grace and law are also present in the covenant of life" (p. 356), which is a non sequitur.

Under the section of "theological considerations," Letham has other arguments for his monocovenantal position. In page 359, Letham argues, "If God related to Adam in creation exclusively by law, our view of the covenant of grace willl be dominantly legal, for grace will serve the purposes of law, and this will color the way we relate to God now." This however is only true in a monocovenantal framework, where what is true of the Covenant of Works is also true of the Covenant of Grace. In page 362, Letham states that "if God had related to man in creation exclusively by law, then his revelation of himself to Adam would not have been a true self-revelation at all, and creation would not express the character of God." This is errant because God did not just give the Covenant of Works to Adam but also the entire garden of Eden, his wife Eve, and communion with God Himself.

Perhaps the strangest argument is seen in page 361, where Letham wrote:

Advocates of the view that the Adamic covenant was purely legal argue that if grace was present, merit would necessarily have been denied, consequently threatening the second Adam's meritorious obedience. This concern stems from a polarized view of law and grace, and puts law prior to grace. It creates precsiely the problem John McLeod Campbell (1800-1872) faced. Campbell argued that Scottish Calvinism had made justice an essential attribute of God and love purely arbitrary. The consequence, he argued, was the priority of the legal over the filial, with devastating effects on piety and assurance. (p. 361)

In response, it must be stated that the argument is one big non sequitur. First, what does the issue of a legal Adamic covenant have to do with the attributes of God and whether justice and/or love is an essential attribute? Second, since Campbell was deemed a heretic by the Scottish church of his time, why should anyone care about Campbell's view on Scottish Calvinism? Third, how does a legal Adamic Covenant result in putting "law prior to grace"? What does this "law prior to grace" even mean?

The proponents for the Covenant of Works argue for the parallelism between Adam and Christ based upon biblical texts such as Rom. 5:12-21. When we argue for why the Covenant of Works must be a covenant "of works," we do see a denial of the works principle here as threatining the second Adam's meritorious obedience precisely because of these texts. Therefore, Letham's hand-waving as saying that such an argument "clouds the issue and makes meaningful discourse difficult" (p. 361) is special pleading.

In conclusion, Letham's arguments for a gracious Adamic Covenant fail. He conflates the various senses of law and grace as used in the Reformed confessions. He also fails to recognize and understand the monocovenantal understanding he is operating upon, and thus there is no critical engagement on this issue. Lastly, he fails to deal with certain key biblical texts concerning the Adamic Covenant. Letham's view on the Covenant of Life is therefore not only in error but also unsupported and poorly argued.

Did John Calvin teach a doctrine of secondary justification?

Steven Wedgeworth over at The Calvinist International had written a blog article arguing that the notion of a "secondary justification" is a Reformed doctrine, taught by no less than John Calvin himself. According to Wedgeworth, John Calvin does in fact teach Justification by Faith Alone, but alongside that he taught a secondary or "different kind of justification" which "remains a forensic and declarative act" and takes account of the "transformative work of regeneration" and "render(s) a sort of judgment on the spiritual fruit of sanctification." This secondary justification is "built atop" and "dependent on" the initial justification, and thus it can be said that there is a sense in which justification is by works, as long as one holds to that justification as a "secondary justification." But are Wedgeworth's arguments sound? We will address them theologically, then historically.

Theologically, it is unclear how this view of initial and secondary justification is not functionally similar to Federal Vision, Arminian and Roman Catholic soteriologies. Just because the "secondary justification" is built upon and dependent on the initial justification does not solve anything, for after all Arminians and Roman Catholics believe that too. For the latter, here is what Trent says about justification and works:

Of this Justification the causes are these: ... the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance ... (Chapter VII, Council of Trent Sixth Session, On Justification - First Decree)

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace. (Chapter VIII, Council of Trent Sixth Session, On Justification - First Decree)

As it can be seen, in Tridentine Roman Catholicism, justification is "free," and faith and works do not merit the grace itself of justification, since the efficient cause of justification is the God who is merciful and washed and sanctify gratuitously sinners through the Holy Spirit. In popular Evangelical rhetoric, it is assumed that Roman Catholicism teaches justification by faith and works, or by works. However, while Roman Catholicism ends up being about salvation by faith and works, it is not technically true that it teaches justification by faith and works. Rather, justification is by grace through faith without works, but justification in Roman Catholicism is a process and thus the works is the "outworking" of grace through works. In orthodox Roman Catholic theology, the works are treated as the outworking of faith in justification, and therefore works become essential for one's status before God, albeit in a round-about way.

Once the Tridentine Roman Catholic teaching on justification is properly understood, it is unclear how it differs from what Wedgeworth is proposing, except that instead of a process of justification we have two acts of justification—the initial justification and the secondary justification. Since the term "justification" is literally "to make just," this calls into question Wedgeworth's assertion that the "secondary justification" does not change the verdict given by the initial justification. In what sense is that secondary justification "justification" if it does not actually "make [the person] just"? Therefore, whatever the intent of those promoting this view of "secondary justification" is, it seems clear that this "secondary justification" smuggles works into the act of justification by a more sophisticated route compared to Roman Catholicism, a move which coincides with the redefinition of "faith" to become "faithfulness" in Federal Vision discourse.

Historical theology is where Wedgeworth's assertions about the historical pedigree of his view come undone. Wedgeworth asserts that John Calvin teaches this secondary justification, but the passages cited from Calvin clearly states that God justifies the unclean works of believers. This "secondary justification" if you may is God declaring that the works of believers are acceptable to Him, or as cited and emphasized by Wedgeworth, "their works are esteemed righteous by the same gratuitous liberality. (Comment. on Ezekiel 18:17)." Note here that the object of this "justification" is the believers' works, not believers themselves. It is the works which are justified, not believers who get doses of justification every time they do a good work. This view of God justifying our works is taught by the Westminster Confession of Faith in the chapter on good works:

Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him, not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreprovable in God’s sight; but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections. (WCF 16.6)

Wedgeworth's argument that Calvin taught a doctrine of secondary justification is therefore a misinterpretation of what he actually wrote. Knowing what Tridentine Roman Catholicism actually teaches, and that the orthodox Reformers unanimously rejected it, we must understand that the orthodox Reformed position is a denial of any kind of two-stage justification or process of justification. The scandal of the Reformation was not because Roman Catholicism believed in works meriting justification (a typical Evangelical caricature), but that the Reformers taught that justification requires no work of any kind at all. That is the essence of the Gospel message of Justification by Faith Alone that scandalized the Pope and the entire structure of Medieval Catholicism. Why is it that charges of antinomianism were leveled against the Reformers? Were 16th century Roman Catholic theologians so dense that they did not know (if it were true) that Protestants have a place for good works in justification (beyond evidence), and therefore the dispute is one of semantics rather than substance?

So did John Calvin taught a doctrine of secondary justification? He did not. Moreover, knowing the centrality of the Gospel and the importance of justification, I think it is very dangerous that such teaching is deemed acceptable in Reformed circles, for once we lose the Gospel, we lose the faith. It is my sincere hope that all of us including Wedgeworth would one day come to reject this teaching as misleading at best, and heretical at worst.

Adams again on Doug Wilson and FV Baptists

On his blog, Brandon Adams has written an interesting response on the issue of Douglas Wilson and the Federal Vision. You can read it here.

Errant doctrinal points of the Federal Vision

The Federal Vision started out as a biblicist reformed program. Over time, it began to systematize its thoughts, and the final document (at least that I know of) that showed its main doctrines is the 2007 Joint Federal Vision Profession. So what exactly does the Federal Vision believe? While there are various elements of Federal Vision, here are some key points of the Federal Vision that are contrary to the Christian faith:

1. Election is immutable and the elect will always be saved. However, not everyone who is in the Covenant of Grace is elect and will be saved. Some in the Covenant are truly and really in the Covenant of Grace, but they chose to apostatize from the faith and thus are not truly elect.(Decretal/Covenant Dialectic)
2. Apostasy is a true falling away from a real participation in the Covenant of Grace.
3. The visible church refers to all professing Christians who may or may not be elect. However, all in the visible church are in the Covenant of Grace (unless they apostatize). The invisible church is currently not present, but will be manifest at the end times (invisible is eschatological), where it will be manifest who in the visible church have shown themselves to be truly elect because they did not apostatize from the faith but are faithful to the Covenant. (True faith is a 'living faith'))
4. There may be a Covenant of Life with Adam (some FVists deny this). But even if there is a Covenant of Life with Adam, all of God's covenants have essentially the same form. There may be different parties, different conditions, and different rewards. However, all of God's covenants have the form: "Believe in God, be faithful, and you will live" (Monocovenantal Legalism)
5. There is no Law-Gospel hermeneutic. All of Scripture can be Law to those who do not believe. All of Scripture will be Gospel to those who believe.

You will note that I did not once mention the word "baptism" in those errant points. This it not because baptism is not important in Federal Vision, because they (in common with the orthodox Reformed) see baptism as the rite of covenant initiation, but rather their error lies in their view of the covenant, while the issue with baptism is merely the outworking of their doctrinal errors in practical church life. That is why I have said that Baptists can be Federal Vision, because the Federal Vision is all about their view of the nature of God's covenants, not the nature of baptism.

[See also: For those just turning in: What is the Federal Vision?]

Why Douglas Wilson remains Federal Vision, and is wrong

It seems the article by Brandon Adams has caught the attention of the biggest name in Federal Vision, Douglas Wilson, who has responded in his article entitled with a slight against R. Scott Clark (RSC). Wilson claims he is orthodox, and denies that he holds to any of the five points of Federal Vision summarized by Dr. Clark.

For me, I have no desire to interact with Wilson on the issue of RSC's five points, which are simplified summaries of Federal Vision. Rather my point is note the following: Wilson remains Federal Vision, and his Federal Vision is biblically wrong.

First, Wilson is and remains Federal Vision. In his supposed "recanting" of Federal Vision, Federal Vision No Mas, Wilson wrote the following:

This statement represents a change in what I will call what I believe. It does not represent any substantial shift or sea change in the content of what I believe. ... I would still want affirm everything I signed off on in the Federal Vision statement, ...

In other words, Wilson does not want to be called Federal Vision because he does not want to own everything that is under the umbrella of Federal Vision. That for sure is fair enough. Wilson does not want to be lumped in with people like Leithart or Jordan. What he believes is what he believes, and others do not speak for him. However, what did he say he believes? He states that he would still "affirm everything ... in the Federal Vision statement," referring to the 2007 Joint Federal Vision Profession, which I have shown to be in error here. In other words, Wilson remains Federal Vision, as he has not recanted signing the 2007 Joint Federal Vision Profession.

Second, Wilson's version of Federal Vision remains heretical. As one reads Wilson's article, note that nothing in the article precludes the Federal Vision understanding of salvation. We must remember to read it using the dialectical pairs of decretal versus covenantal, and invisible/ eschatological versus visible/ present. Wilson claims he is following the WCF when he states that faith is a living faith, but here he misquotes WCF 11.2, whereby the part of the living faith is mentioned only after what faith is has already been described in the first part of WCF 11.2. A living faith is living as a consequence of faith, not because obedience is necessary for faith itself, but because faith necessarily leads to obedience. Thus, Wilson is still a neonomian despite his protests to the contrary.

What is most illuminating in Wilson's article however is where Wilson shows his FV heresy in his comment to Adams, as follows:

Brandon, thanks. Not a contradiction. There is a difference between the condition of the covenant itself and the condition for keeping the covenant. The central aspect of the first covenant was to believe what God said about not eating the fruit. The central aspect of the second covenant is to believe what God said about the resurrection of Jesus. But men, always and everywhere, must believe God. Right?

As it can be seen, for Wilson, the Covenant of Works has the condition of believing God by not eating the fruit. The Covenant of Grace has the condition of believing God by believing in the resurrection of Christ. What is the condition for the first covenant? Faith. What is the condition for the second covenant? Also faith. In Wilson's view, the Covenant of Works is not "Do this and live" (c.f. Lev. 18:5), while the Covenant of Grace is not "believe and you will live." No, rather, both are "believe and do to live." That obedience is necessary for salvation is seen in a subsequent comment, where Wilson said, in reference to God's covenants, "One of the common characteristics on our side is that all of us would have to do what He says. We would have to comply, or be obedient."

One of the reasons why I called Federal Vision monocovenantal legalism is that it is monocovenantal, where the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace have the same form (not necessarily the same content). It is legalism because in both covenants, obedience is necessary to the covenant. Whereas in orthodox Reformed Covenant Theology, obedience is necessary for the Covenant of Works, but our obedience is absolutely unnecessary for the Covenant of Grace. Our evangelical obedience comes AFTER the covenant has been established, AFTER salvation has already been determined. Once someone is in the Covenant of Grace, there is nothing that can cause the person to fall away, and nothing means nothing including disobedience. That is what perseverance of the saints actually teach, that even the person saved cannot "undo" his salvation. Again, this is not to say obedience is not important for the Christian. But it has nothing to do with the basis for salvation, under the Covenant of Grace.

That Wilson see obedience as necessary for both covenants to be saved proves he is still an unrepentant Federal Vision heretic, and therefore should be avoided as someone who pays lip service to Justification by Faith Alone yet undermines it in the very next breath.

Again: Can Baptists be Federal Visionists?

[Previous posts on this here and here]

In his article, Brandon Adams wrote an analytic overview of the issues concerning the White/Wilson/ Clark kerfuffle. One major issue is whether Baptists can become or be influenced by Federal Vision (FV). Adams argued that Baptists cannot become Federal Visionists, but they can become influence by it to become neonimians.

On the question as to whether Baptists can be Federal Visionists, my response would be, "How do you define Federal Vision?" Does being FV imply full assent to every single proposition in the 2007 Joint FV Statement? Or is it affiliation with CREC (Confederacy of Reformed and Evangelical Churches)? Or something else? Certainly, if Federal Vision is taken in its fullness, then sure, Baptists cannot be Federal Visionists. But are there certain core aspects of Federal Vision that Baptists can assimilate into their beliefs? Most certainly.

The core belief of Federal Vision that should be the most concerning for Christians is the issue of the nature of faith. Look again at the Joint FV Statement on the topic of Justification by Faith Alone:

We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active, and personally loyal faith. Justifying faith encompasses the elements of assent, knowledge, and living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer. We deny that faith is ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call.

As I had written, the Joint FV Statement redefines fiducia from a passive reception of Christ into an active faithfulness. That is why it is claimed that the parts of faith are "assent, knowledge and living trust." That faithfulness is understood as being of the nature of saving faith is seen in its chapter on apostasy, whereby it is affirmed that apostasy is a real cutting off that is not "merely external." That means that the person who once had faith but was cut off was indeed a true Christian. Yes, he is not "decretally elect," but that is because there is a dialectic at work here between decree and covenant. The "decree" is eschatological, not actually present in real time in full. That is why a person who come to have faith is treated as covenantally of the elect (because covenant is the category in time), whereas whether he truly is "decretally" elect must await final confirmation without apostasy at the last day.

The question then is can Baptists adopt these dialectical pairs (decretal/ covenantal, visible/invisible church) without at the same time adopting the FV view of children. I do not see a reason why not. But if that is the case, can those Baptists be called FVists? Honestly, the label is not that important to me (whether FV or Neonomian). But why I think FV is a better label for that error is that neonomianism itself does not have these dialectical pairs. Neonomianism in itself merely states that obedience to the law is necessary (antecedent) for a Christian's salvation. Whereas these dialectical pairs come about through a more holistic view of biblical and covenantal theology. What exactly in Baptist theology prevents them from adopting a dialectic between decree and covenant, or between the visible and invisible church? What exactly in Baptist theology prevents them from holding faithfulness as necessary (antecedent) for salvation?

Can Baptists be Federal Visionists? Not if you think Federal Visionists must included inclusion of children in the covenant. But since it is possible to reject that while agreeing with the other parts of the FV theology, Baptists can indeed be "credobaptist FVists."

[P.S.: Yes, while the Joint FV Statement was not written to be "a confessional statement by any ecclesiastical assembly or body," yet it can function as a legitimate expression of FV theology]

The sordid state of American Reformed Christianity on Twitter

On October 11, 2019, I had posted a response to Todd Pruit's tweet attacking a paragraph written by Douglas Wilson. In response to this, as I had previously commented on, Dr. Clark decided to block me on Twitter:

So as it can be seen, there are some against the FV who are factionalists. But what about the opposite side? Well, I decided to attempt to engage Richard Pierce of Alpha and Omega Ministries on Twitter, in a thread as follows:

Because FV is not just about infant baptism but about doctrine of salvation?

— puritanreformed (@puritanreformed) November 19, 2019

My somewhat sketchy screenshots of the entire thread is as follows:

Despite my attempt at genuine conversation, Pierce decided that he has no wish to engage, slandered me as an "inquisitor" alongside my "inquisitor friends," and blocked me.

I guess I should not be astonished any longer, but I am astonished that Christian leaders on Twitter are now behaving like the world. I assert that one must be truthful even about Douglas Wilson, and I get blocked by one side. I attempted to reason that Federal Vision is a heresy attacking the faith, and I got blocked by the other side. Is there any Christian leader left on American Reformed Twitter that has some semblance of maturity, instead of behaving like children in a schoolyard!? How is all such refusal to actually engage the issue helpful for the truth? Both sides are like two kids screaming at each other from opposite sides of the hallway, refusing to engage. And these are our pastors and theologians?! God help us.

Turretin on the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant

IV. Now as the church is rightly distributed into militant and triumphant, so the distinction between them must be considered not to be essential and specific as to nature but only accidentally as to state and degree. For since there is only one communion of saints and only one body of Christ (Cant. 6:9), as he head by which it is governed is only one and the Spirit by which it is animated only one (Eph. 4:3, 4); so the church in both states is the same, …

V. These two states, however, as so mutually connected by the most wise dispensation of God that they cannot be torn asunder, but necessarily attend and follow each other. Just as no one can be a citizen of the church triumphant who has not given his name before to the militant, nor is anyone crowned in the former with Christ who has not rightly contended with him, so no one is a true member of the church militant here who in his own time will not be carried into the church triumphant; nor is anyone enrolled among believers in grace who will not be received into the choir of the blessed in glory. For whom Christ once received coming to him, he will never cast out (Jn. 6:37), because the bond of our union with him is eternal and indissoluble (adialyton). …

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 20.XIII.5; v. 3:633-4]

The Church Militant refers to the Invisible Church on earth, fighting sin, the world and the Devil. The Church Triumphant refers to the Church in heaven, who has won over sin, the world and the Devil. Errors like the Federal Vision attempt to separate the two, such that one can be a member of the Church Militant without being a member of the Church Triumphant, due to covenant breaking. However, Scripture teaches that those who are truly saved are the members of the Church Militant, and will never fall away. Thus, 1 Jn. 2:19 states that those who are "covenant breakers" were never truly in the Church in the first place. They broke the covenant externally- that is true, but they were never actually in it.

The Church Militant and the Church Triumphant are thus two sides of the same coin, in different forms. Until Christ comes again, the two forms are present, since we are living in the period between the Inauguration and the Consummation of the Kingdom of God. When Christ returns, the two will be seen as one, and all who believe in Christ will be gathered as the Church Triumphant, praising God and Christ forever and ever.

John Murray and the Covenant of Works

What is important to underscore is that, while Murray preferred the use of different labels, he affirmed the essential parts of substance of the covenant of works and of the covenant of grace, as outlined in the Westminster Standards. In fact, his rejection of the term covenant of works" to describe what he called "the Adamic administration" stemmed, in part, from his desire to preserve its unique character. Since the term "covenant" was (according to Murray) a sovereign administration of grace and promise in a specifically redemptive context, such an idea would be inappropriate in Adam's thoroughly non-redemptive situation. Read in this light, Murray's preference to restrict the term "covenant" to the post-fall situation is actually indicative of his concern to preserve the non-redemptive "legal" character of Adam's original situation. [Andrew M. Elam, Robert C. Van Kooten, Randall A. Bergquist, Moses and Merit: A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014), 17]

John Murray, a Reformed theologian and one of the founding generation of the OPC, has become something like a whipping boy in certain circles for the way he construes the Covenant of Works. John Murray denied the terminology of the Covenant of Works, preferring to call it an Adamic administration with works aspects in it. Now, at least some of his critics acknowledge that Murray held to the essential elements of the Covenant of Works, although he denied its terminology. Therefore, the argument put forward by the three presbyters in the OPC Pacific Northwest Presbytery is rather old news. The question however to ask is: Is holding on the elements of the Covenant of Works sufficient for a confession of the truth of the Covenant of Works? I would assert not.

The meaning of words are basic and foundational for understanding and communication. When terms are given new meanings, the same words or phrases will differ in meaning. If the shift of meaning is not made clear, misunderstanding will abound. When we come to Murray's teaching concerning the Covenant of Grace, we see such redefinition occur. Murray redefined the word "Covenant," and he defines "merit" in a way to exclude the concept of "covenantal merit"(meritum ex pacto). For whatever reason Murray does it, by the redefinition in a manner closer towards something that looks more like the "gracious" understanding of God taught by luminaries like Karl Barth and Daniel Fuller, Murray's framing of Covenant Theology is the gateway that allows error to enter, although he himself is orthodox. By the emphasis on grace to the denigration of works, the road towards monocovenantalism is paved, for others will not stop at mere terminology but will go on to be consistent with the shift in terminology.

It is actually not a hard thing to do. If one starts out with the preconceived, aprioristic notion that covenants are always grace, and one does not nuance that view further, it is easy to subsume the works principle under grace, so that works serve the purpose of grace in a flattened one-dimensional manner. The Adamic administration becomes essentially gracious, and therefore the essence of the traditional Reformed doctrine concerning the Covenant of Works is denied. Since there is an undeniable works principle in the Adamic administration, grace cannot be contrary to works in some sense, and thus works is smuggled in through the concept of "faithfulness." According to this view, Federal Vision, the Adamic administration is one of grace, but Adam has to be faithful to God's graciousness in keeping the condition of the covenant. If Adam failed to be faithful to God in this gracious covenant, he would be a covenant breaker and suffer the penalties of the covenant. Likewise, in the New Covenant, believers are under a gracious covenant but they need to continue to be faithful, or suffer the penalties of breaking the covenant.

It is good that Murray affirmed the elements of the Covenant of Works. But that is not sufficient for confessing the full teaching and orthodoxy of the Covenant of Works, as traditionally understood in the Reformed tradition. The move to make everything of grace will always result in the smuggling of works somewhere. Far better it is to acknowledge works as works, instead of calling it somehow part of grace and then subverting the graciousness of grace. So although Murray is orthodox, his manner of reframing the doctrine has opened the way for Norman Shepherd and Federal Vision, who will go on to be more consistent with Murray's terminology while rejecting what he means by it.

Covenant and conditionality

In his book The Call of Grace, Norman Shepherd promotes the idea that all covenants have conditions which Man has to fulfill in order to partake of the promises of the covenant. Shepherd's monocovenantalism entails the total confusion of grace and works. In the name of navigating a third way between legalism and antinomianism (pp. 8-9), Shepherd creates a monstrosity where one is saved by grace, but then one has to persevere in order to remain in grace. One wonders whether Shepherd realizes that this is the Roman Catholic position. Rome has never once taught that one is saved by works, but she has always taught that one is saved by grace AND faith "formed by love," the performing of works in accordance with one's faith.

I would like to look at this issue of "conditionality" as to how Shepherd has totally muddled the issue. The PRCA (Protestant Reformed Churches of America) of course think that this issue of "conditionality" is basically the problem with the Federal Vision: the "heresy of conditional covenant," while totally ignoring the fact that in some sense, faith must be a condition. The PRCA are irrational in their idiosyncratic doctrines, and ideas that one can have an absolutely "unconditional" covenant and faith are contradictory to basic reason.

The concept of conditions merely signifies that they are necessary and/or sufficient for the consequent(s) to occur. For a sufficient condition, if "condition x," then "result y." For a necessary condition, no "condition x," no "result y." It does not say in what sense it is necessary or sufficient. Faith for example we have said is the instrumental condition for salvation. It is not the grounds for salvation, but the manner of how salvation comes about. This drawing of distinctions is necessary, because as we shall see with Shepherd, the failure to draw distinctions result in heresy.

Shepherd treats "conditions" as something that Man must do, as basically "human responsibility" (p. 9). Immediately here we see that that is the wrong definition. Just because something is a condition does not mean that Man is responsible for it. If I say that it is a necessary condition that the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect, in order that they may be saved, is there anything humans have to do in the entire process? Of course not! Shepherd starts off with the wrong idea of "condition," and things just go south from there.

In his discussion of the Abrahamic Covenant, Shepherd claims that there are 5 requirements which had to be met in order for God to fulfill His promises to Abraham. The first requirement is that circumcision is necessary. Furthermore, since circumcision is not meant to be "merely outward and physical" (p. 15), the requirement of circumcision means God was "requiring the full scope of covenant loyalty and obedience all along the line" (p. 15). Right off, the extension of circumcision to the full scope of covenant obedience is just a total confusion of sign and the thing signified. Even worse than that is Shepherd doesn't even seem to realize that the inward circumcision is not obedience but regeneration, as the correspondence between circumcision and baptism in Col. 2: 13 show. What else does "God made us alive" mean except the act of regeneration? Circumcision and baptism both are supposed to function as the sign of regeneration or inward circumcision, and thus Shepherd is in error even if we admit that circumcision is a "Shepherdite-condition."

Circumcision however is not a Shepherdite-condition. Rather, it is a requirement in the sense that it is a sign of something required, i.e. regeneration. Just as baptism does not save, but rather what it signifies, regeneration, saves, so likewise this requirement of circumcision is not a requirement for salvation, but a requirement that logically (not necessarily temporally) follows regeneration. It is an a posteriori condition, not an a priori condition, just like good works. An a posteriori condition merely means it is the necessary consequent of faith. A person breathes if he is alive, thus he does not "fulfill the condition" of breathing in order to be alive, but that he is alive so he therefore breathes. The failure to breathe evidences that the person is dead, not alive. Likewise, in this sense refusal to circumcise does not mean that a person is not regenerated, but rather that it evidences an unregenerate heart.

The other Shepherdite-conditions are that Abraham needs to have faith, he needs to have a "living and obedience faith," and he needs "to walk before the Lord and be blameless" (pp. 15-6), and the fulfillment of the promises of the land promise for example depended upon the obedience of the Israelites. Regarding faith, Shepherd refuses to distinguish between instrument and ground. The next two "requirements" Abraham has to do are a posteriori conditions. The last requirement shows the conflation of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. The Abrahamic promise of land refers to the promised land of Canaan as a type of heaven, while the physical land itself is a typological fulfillment in the Mosaic Covenant, and thus not the same.

This is just a sample of the problems with this book. Shepherd routinely refuses to make distinctions and he conflates issues together, and in so doing creates heresy. All covenants have conditions, that's true. But not all conditions are conditions. And most certainly conditions are not always indications of human responsibility. Conditionality is merely a logical function, and says nothing about who and how the conditions are supposed to be met.

Reasons and Specifications for the dismissal of Norman Shepherd

Dr. R Scott Clark has put on his website a copy of the Reasons and Specifications by Westminster Theological Seminary Philadelphia (WTS-P) to dismiss Norman Shepherd back in 1981, which can be read here. The document is very interesting. Here are two excerpts:

The Executive Committee, at the direction of the Board, prepared a brief statement of the reasons for the action. The statement said that: “The Board makes no judgment whether Mr. Shepherd’s views as such contradict Westminster Standards.” But the statement also alleged that “partly because of deep inherent problems in the structure and the particular formulations of Mr. Shepherd’s views, partly because of Mr. Shepherd’s manner of criticizing opponents as non—Reformed rather than primarily incorporating their concerns more thoroughly into his own position in response, too many people in the Seminary community and constituency and the larger Christian public have come to judge that Mr. Shepherd’s teaching appears to them to contradict or contravene, either directly or impliedly, some element in that system of doctrine taught by the Standards.” (p.1)

...Mr. Shepherd would make obedience the central and embracing category for our response to God and thereby question the restrictions that the Reformed standards have put on the place and function of our good works. He urges that this can be done without danger since this obedience is not meritorious and therefore cannot become the ground of our salvation. But the very simplicity of this solution creates its danger. There is a vast and crucial difference between fleeing to Christ for salvation and serving God acceptably in new obedience. Close as the relation must be between faith and works, the distinction is central to the gospel. Mr. Shepherd does affirm a distinct function for faith, but his concept of the “dynamic” of covenantal relation effectively subordinates faith to obedience and shifts the balance in a sensitive area of great theological importance.

This distinctive aspect of his thought has been the troubling factor in these seven years of controversy. While the Board has not judged that his views are in error, the Board has come to the conviction that his views are not clearly in accord with the standards of the Seminary; for this reason it has acted within its authority to remove him from his office for the best interests of the Seminary. (p. 18)

I wasn't aware there is any substantial difference between something contradicting the Westminster Standards, and something not in accord with those Standards.

Ominous Omen: Norman Shepherd

The Federal Vision did not drop out of the sky. Rather, when we peer back into time, we see the seeds of the Federal Vision already in the Shepherd Controversy. Once shrouded because of denominational politicking, the Shepherd Controversy has been revealed to the world through O. Palmer Robertson's book The Current Justification Controversy (Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2003). Here are some choice quotes written by Norman Shepherd in 1978 at the height of the controversy, from his Thirty-Four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance, and Good Works:

20. The Pauline affirmation in Roman 2:13, “the doers of the Law will be justified,” is not to be understood hypothetically in the sense that there are no persons who fall into that class, but in the sense that faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified (Compared Luke 8:21; James 1:22-25)

21. The exclusive ground of justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Heb. 3:6, 14)

22. The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer’s justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46; Heb. 12:14)

23. Because faith which is not obedience faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments (John 15:5, 10; 1 John 3:13, 24) are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for his glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22; Gal. 6:7-9)

2 Cor. 5:21 and the imputation of Christ's righteousness

... This passage [2 Cor. 5:21] teaches that Christ's participation in human sin enables humans to participate in the righteousness of God through union with Christ. The word ginomai ("become") is not a synonym for logizomai ("count"). So Paul does not say that "God imputed our sin to the sinless one, and imputed God's righteousness to us." We can say what the text says, no more and no less: Christ was made sin probably in the sense of carrying, bearing and taking sins upon himself, and those are in Christ share in the "righteousness of God."

[Michael F. Bird, "Progressive Reformed View," in James K. Beiby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., Justification: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic), 149]

-

τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ. (2 Cor. 5:21)

He made the one who knew not sin to be sin for our sake, in order that we might become the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:21 Own translation)

The attack against the very idea of Christ's active righteousness continues. The so-called "Progressive Reformed" view (certainly "progressive" but not Reformed) joins with the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision in denying the very idea that Christ has an active righteousness which is imputed to believers. Rather, "Progressive Reformed" proponent Micheal F. Bird proposes that our faith is counted as righteousness before God, with 'righteousness' being understood as a status before God not a property transferred from Christ to believers (pp. 147-8).

In reducing all things to relational categories, Bird likewise does the same in his interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:21. For Bird, 2 Cor. 5:21 shows Christ to be "carrying, bearing and taking sins upon himself" and we "share in the 'righteousness of God.'" However, is that a viable interpretation of the text?

We note there in 2 Cor. 5:21, the two clauses are parallel to each other. Therefore, however one wants to interpret the action of "making sin," the exact same interpretation is to be applied to the action of us "becoming." Bird's semantic argument is discounted as nobody is saying that λογιζομαι is the same as γινομαι. The issue has always been the interpretation of this verse, not merely the form of this verse.

The traditional interpretation has been that Christ was imputed our sins, and therefore in the same manner Christ's righteousness was imputed to us, thus preserving the parallelism. If we adopt Bird's proposed alternate interpretation, then the question is asked, "In what sense does Christ carry and bear our sins?" If Christ actually became our sin, then that would mean that Christ was actually sinful on the cross, which is a heretical notion. If Christ merely died to pay the penalty for sin but did not actually carry sin, just its penalty, then to preserve the parallelism, we must also say that believers do not actually become the righteousness of God, but merely enjoy the rewards of righteousness. To throw the word 'union' around is vacuous, for what kind of 'union' are we talking about? If we partake of the 'righteousness of God' via 'union,' then does that therefore make Christ sinful as He partake of our sins via 'union'?

This type of sloppy exegesis by Bird is sad. If speaks of a failure to think through the logical conclusions of one's interpretation. Was Christ actually sinful at the Cross when He bore the sins of the world? How does Bird's language of "Christ's participation in human sin" and his interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:21 not leave him open to the charge of denying that Christ has always been sinless?

2 Cor. 5:21 has always been one of the key verses used to prove the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us. It is so not because λογιζομαι or any of its cognates is found in the verse, but rather that such is the best interpretation of the verse in light of its grammatical form and coherence with other aspects of Systematic Theology.

More on FV and Baptists

Recently, I have heard an informal presentation of one Reformed Baptist position of Covenant Theology. Now, this is informal and not meant to be representative of the theology of all or even most Baptists, neither is it official and necessarily well thought out, but it illuminates one possible manner in which Baptists can appropriate Federal Vision (FV) theology while still remaining Baptists (proving that FV is NOT necessarily a Presbyterian issue).

The manner lies in the understanding of how one enters the Covenant. In that informal presentation of one Reformed Baptist position, the statement is made that "There is no external federal relation to Jesus Christ." I am sure that the presenter was not consciously using the language of the Federal Vision, but this statement reveals to me one manner of how Baptists can be FVists too.

FVists also believe that there is not external federal relation to Jesus Christ. In traditional FV theology, the practice of infant baptism and oftentimes even paedocommunion is due to their arguing as follows:

P1: Infants are included in the Covenant of Grace

P2: There is only one vital federal relation to Jesus Christ

C: Therefore, infants are in true vital federal relation to Jesus Christ and are to have all the benefits of believers including baptism and partaking of Holy Communion

FVists who are Baptists can reason as follows:

~P1: Infants are not included in the Covenant of Grace, which is only for believers who profess their faith

P2: There is only one vital federal relation to Jesus Christ

C: Therefore, infants are not believers, not in true vital federal relation to Jesus Christ and are not to be baptized much less partake of Holy Communion.

As it can be seen, Premise 2 is one of the distinctive teachings of the Federal Vision. Premise 1 is basically the difference between the Reformed and Presbyterian, and Baptists.

Just for contrast, the Reformed position is this:

P1: Infants are included in the Covenant of Grace

~P2: There is more than one federal relation to Jesus Christ (namely two ways: external and internal)

P3: Baptism is initiation into the Covenant community, while the Lord's Supper is for those who can discern the Lord's Body

C: Therefore, infants are in the external form of the Covenant of Grace (as all professing believers are even those who eventually fall away), but cannot discern the Lord's body, so they are baptized but cannot partake of the Lord's Supper.

Contrary to what John Piper thinks, FV is a threat to Baptists too.

Federal Vision Baptists?

Since John Piper's invitation of FV heretic Douglas Wilson, the idea is floated about that FV is merely an extension of Presbyterian view of the covenant. It is thus deemed inconceivable that there are Federal Vision Baptists, but the reality is there are Baptist churches in the CREC denomination, the flagship of the Federal Vision.

Is the Federal Vision REALLY just something that stems from the Presbyterian and Reformed view of the covenant? Those who think so do not either realize (1) the essence of the Federal Vision error, or (2) the covenantal theology embraced by the Particular and Reformed Baptists.

The essence of the FV error is not their view of the application of the Covenant. The essence of the FV error is in their dialectic between covenant and decree, and between the visible and invisible church. In other words, nothing in the FV has anything with regards to the application of baptism to infants. It is thus theoretically possible to believe in FV and still be a baptist, since believing that people can be covenantally elect while being able to fall away has nothing to do with infant baptism at all.

Secondly, those who do so do not realize that Particular and Reformed baptists can and do embrace Covenant Theology in a modified form. The major difference of course is that they believe that the sign of the covenant of baptism is to not to be applied to infant because infants do not profess faith. In other respects however, there is much similarity.

One could very well believe in everything in the Joint FV Profession and still believe that Infants should not be baptized because they do not exercise faith. Noticeable absent after all in the Joint FV Profession is anything mentioned regarding Infant Baptism.

Baptists such as John Piper should not therefore be playing around with fire. To think that this is a "Presbyterian" issue is naive. I don't think we want to wait for FV to infiltrate and subvert many Baptist churches before they start to realize that there is a problem at hand.

Conversation with a Federal Vision pastor

A Federal Vision Minister Speaks to an Inquirer

by: Wes White

It seems that Federal Visionist Douglas Wilson was asked the same type of questions Pastor Wes White has posted on his blog some time back. A commenter on my blog took offense at my labeling of Douglas Wilson as a heretic, and directed me to the two videos someone did with Doug Wilson using the same questions Wes White placed in the imaginary conversation in the above video.

The two videos can be seen in two parts here (Part 1, and Part 2).

Let's examine Wilson's answers as follows.

===

Inquirer: I’m not a believer, but I have been listening to Christian radio a lot. I heard your ad on the radio, and I decided to visit your Church and see what it’s about. ... I have been thinking that I want to become a Christian, what do I need to do?

Wilson: Believe in Jesus. So... um... there are different ways to answer the question. So when you say, "What do I need to do?" if you are assuming what good works do I need to perform in order to be worthy to become a Christian, then the answer is none. You can't do anything. You can't do anything. But when.. the Gospel is preached.. preached in the book of Acts and the people say, "What shall we do?" Peter said, "Repent and be baptized." And what that is is a shorthand form of "Repent of your sins, believe in Jesus and join yourselves to God's people." That's a summary. And so, the moment of becoming a Christians is when you repent and believe, and the shaping life of discipleship occurs in the context of a church.

Wilson's answer may sound orthodox to some, only because Federal Visionists are very good at obfuscation. None of the FVists ever claim to believe in salvation by works. Rather, their error is that they believe in the faith that justifies as being a "living faith" similar to how Roman Catholics believe in it. From the classical formula of faith being defined as cognitio, assentia and fiducia, FVists smuggle in works through the backdoor, not the front.

We note that Wilson's answer includes the idea of joining a church. We note here that the question posed by the inquirer is not "What good works do Christians do?" but "What do I need to do to become a Christian?" This proves the confusion of justification and sanctification by the FVists. Becoming a Christian is not predicated by whether a person joins a church or not. Which church after all did the thief on the cross joined himself to? What happens to someone who becomes a Christian in Saudi Arabia and cannot find a church to attend? Is he or is he not a Christian if he cannot find a church to attend?

Inquirer: Well, actually I was baptized as an infant, does that mean that I am a Christian?

Wilson: It means you are covenantally bound to Christ. So consequently if you are baptized in infancy, assuming it was baptized by an orthodox Christian church — if you were not baptized by a sect or a cult — but if you were baptized by a Christian church, that means that you are returning to the faith now. You are not coming to the faith for the first time. You have been covenantally connected to Christ, and now if you are believing in Jesus genuinely for the first time, then you are finally going to be... your profession of your heart is going to match up with your baptism which is the way it was supposed to be.

We can notice the hedging of Wilson's answer. While certainly not as plain as White's imaginary answer, nothing that Wilson says here contradicts White's assessment of Wilson's answer. According to Wilson, the inquirer is considered covenantally a Christian but has not actually returned to the faith until he believes. The term for this is called "covenant breakers." In his debate with James White, Wilson affirms Roman Catholic baptism and argues for its validity. This shows us the lengths to which Wilson believes in his "objective covenant." The hedging against sects and cults is only for those who deny the Trinity as Wilson states in that debate, not for those who deny the Gospel as the Roman Catholics do.

So Whites' imaginary answer is essentially correct. Covenant breakers are still considered Christians, just believers who are fallen away from grace and must return back to grace in order to be saved.

Inquirer: But how do I get forgiveness of my sins and new life?

Wilson: By asking God to forgive your sins for the sake of Jesus Christ. So Jesus Christ died on the cross, was buried, He rose again from the dead. Because of that, we can have forgiveness of sin. So when you cry out to God, you are to cry out to God in Jesus' name, which is shorthand for saying, "I have sinned and I have no basis for appealing to you other than the death , burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ." So because Jesus died, you died to sin. Because Jesus rose, you are freed from that sin. So you have to come to God through Jesus, through faith in Jesus.

The issue here is not whether what Wilson says is wrong. Of course the answer is correct. But that is besides the point since apart from baptism, you are not saved according to the FV system. The more pertinent question to be asked here is whether Wilson thinks that a person can be saved apart from baptism and joining the church, and his answer seems to be no.

White's imaginary answer goes to the heart of FV sacramentalism. It is not referring to the existential state of "returning to faith," but the so-called objective covenantal reality which is true of every person in this so-called "objective covenant." Baptism in the FV system confers the reality of new life and forgiveness of sins, but it is lost existentially when a person "falls away from his baptism," whether that occurs at birth after infant baptism, or later when one backslide as an adult.

Inquirer: Wow. What I heard on the radio made me think I had to be converted or born again first. Is that true?

Wilson: Yes. Jesus said that unless you are born again, you wouldn't be able to see the kingdom. So none of this makes any sense to an unregenerate, unconverted person. So.. um.. the Bible teaches that God gives life and then we are alive. God gives eyes and then we see. God gives ears and then we hear. So the illustration I am fond of using is when Jesus called Lazarus out of the tomb, He was calling him out of a condition of death. And when Jesus called Lazarus, it wasn't a case of Jesus pulling and Lazarus pushing. Lazarus wasn't helping. After Jesus quickened him, after Jesus brought him to life, then Lazarus did a bunch of stuff. So yes, you must be converted; you must be born again; you must be ... your heart must be changed. And when it is, then all of this stuff we are going to be talking about on Christian discipleship and the follow up and the result of that will then makes sense to you.

No one denies that the Federal Vision believes that existentially repentance is necessary. But what is the relationship of this and the covenant reality? We note here that in White's imaginary conversation, the relation is this: that believers are to be assured by their objective covenant reality. In his word "Just walk according to the grace that you have received in baptism." If one wants to fault White here for not admitting that FVists do believe in the existential need to repent, that is straining at a gnat to swallow a camel.

Inquirer: This is amazing. I was wondering if I would get to heaven, but what you’re saying is basically that in baptism I have a free ticket to heaven. Am I understanding that correct?

Wilson: Um... no. In baptism you don't have a free ticket to heaven. If someone is baptized and if they don't have faith — they don't have a living evangelical faith in Christ. If someone is baptized and they don't believe in Jesus, and the Bible says they we must believe in Jesus, then that baptism is a ticket to hell, not to heaven. If a husband puts a ring on in a wedding ceremony, that does not make him automatically faithful no matter what. A baptism is like a wedding ring. And so it is a covenantal sign and formalizes your obligations. So if a faithful husband, if someone who truly loves his wife, puts his ring on and said, "This means that I am the happiest man alive." Well, because he really loves his wife, it does mean that. If a cheating, adulterous hound puts the ring on, does this automatically mean that he is happily married? Well, he is an idiot. It doesn't work that way. So if you ...um... Baptism ..um... is just like the Gospel preached. When you hear the Gospel preached, hearing sermons does not put you in with God — you have to respond with faith. With everything God offers, the only appropriate response is faith. So God offers the Gospel in a sermon, faith is the response. If God offers Himself in the sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the only appropriate response is believing Him, trusting Him, faith.

But then what is "faith"? According to the FVists, faith must be living and therefore works is smuggled in through redefinition of faith as including "fiducia." Can a person has faith apart from joining a church? Can the thief on the cross be saved by faith, or is his faith deficient because he did not join any church or has not gone through "Christian discipleship and appropriate follow up"?

So if we want to nuance White's answer, the answer to the question by Wilson is simply, "No, you get these benefits, but only if your faith includes the living component to it."

Inquirer: But I keep hearing on the radio that we are justified without works. Now, is that true?

Wilson Justified apart from works, yes. We are not justified by anything we do, or prepare ourselves to do. In Rom. 9, it is said that it is not of him who wills, of him who runs, but it is God who shows mercy. God doesn't save us because of good works, doesn't save us because we sang in the choir, doesn't save us because we were in the Boy Scouts, doesn't save us because of our boys(? unintelligible) should like... none of that. So.. um... When people are saved, it is because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ being given to them as a gift plus nothing.

Same reply as above. What exactly is "faith"?

Inquirer: So, I can lose my justification?

Wilson No. What God gives, GOD gives. So if someone is um... one of the elect, then (you may have pick up on the radio if you are asking questions of a Calvinistic pastor). So we believe that God has settled and determined that who is going to be saved and who lost. Um... from all eternity. If someone has, ... if God has begun a good work in one of the elect's life, then He will complete the good work that Ge began. That doesn't mean that someone cannot be attached to a church, be it baptism or false profession and baptism or all the different ways that people join a church, the wheat field as Jesus said has tares in it - there's weeds in the wheat field. Ummm.. but those people who fall away are people who fall away who they ... never had the root of the matter in them. If people are truly converted by God, one of the elect, then they are going to persevere, eh.. to the end.

The problem here is that the FVists bifurcate on the definition of election. The orthodox line will be given when they deal with what they call "decretal election." But the issue is that they believe that this is not possible to know so we must focus on "covenantal election." Those who are covenantally elected can and do fall away, and this is the problem in their theology. So decretally, nobody can lose their salvation. But covenantally, one can lose and gain one's salvation, depending on whether one "perseveres in faith."

Instead of believing in two ways of being in the covenant as per 1 Jn. 2:20, they believe that there are two ways of being elected. Those who are in the covenant are all truly elected but can become reprobate if they do not keep up their perseverance in the covenant. So such people who fall away were indeed at one time truly justified.

So, can one lose one's justification? According to FV, yes and no. Wilson gives the PR answer by thinking of it along the lines of decretal election, but if one deals with covenantal election, then one can see the error of the FV.

We must remember how this impacts people in the church. Someone who is joined the church will be said to be truly justified, and if he falls away then he will be said to be not justified. Yes, it is not a losing of justification in the abstract decretal notion, but do all these nuances matter in the life of the church? What happens is that at one time, the person X will be said to be justified. At another time, the same person X will be said to be not justified. The fact of the matter is that justification can be lost in the FV system, no matter how one desires to nuance it.

Wilson Right, it's not possible for one of the elect to lose their justification. Justification is the declaration that God makes over a person at the point where they are converted. If someone is decretally elect, to use confessional language, if someone is decretally elect, and God justifies them in that decretal, that forensic declaration - that is not possible to lose. You can't lose it, so it's useless to talk about getting it back. If somebody is a false professor, if they come into the church, don't have the root of the matter in them, not truly converted, are they part of the Bride? Do they participate in a covenantal, general way um... in the blessings of the ...eh...Body? Yes. Um.. and I would use the language the Westminster Confession uses: Unconverted people in the visible church share in the common operations of the Spirit. So, there is some measure of blessing for them there. Ummm.... but it is not final blessing; it is not a blessing that cannot be lost; it does not them any good in the end. So it is a common operation of the Spirit... the kind of efficacious justification, no, you can't lose it and therefore can't get it back.

Same answer as above. Wilson focuses on decretal language, yet the main issue here is that the covenantal election in the FV is said to be just as real and objective.

Inquirer: So, can I have any assurance that I will be in heaven? Since many Christians don’t get to heaven, how do I know I’m not one of them?

Wilson: Ok, well. Many professing Christians don't get to heaven. Many covenantal Christians don't get to heaven. But in 1 John 5:13, John writes this, "I write this to you, so that you may that you have eternal life." So knowledge of salvation, knowledge of ... knowledge and assurance of justification, salvation is available and proclaimed through the Gospel, through the various means that God has presented the Gospel to His people, and so that is a ....ummm... that's to be considered the norm. Knowledge that you are loved of God, that you are accepted by Him, that should be the Christian norm. So if someone says... ummm... that what you mean to say that there are baptized Christians who are going to hell? So if that is the case, I am a baptized Christian, how do I know that I am not going to hell? Well, the answer to that is He is a skunk you know? It says in Gal. 5 that the works of the flesh are manifest, the works of the flesh are plain. So if someone is a drinking, whoring cocaine-using person and living like the devil, um.... well, there is no mystery why he is lost. If you love Jesus and you love His people, and you.. worship Him faithfully, and you love the things of God, um... there is no reason to be unsettled in your assurance at all. Martin Luther was once asked, "How can I know I am a Christian?" And Luther said, "Well, say your prayers, man." Look to Jesus, look to Christ. There is no assurance except looking at Christ.

The problem comes about because those who are covenantally elected are said to be truly saved, not that they may be saved. If they are truly saved yet they can be lost, why should those of us who are similarly covenantally elected not be fearful whether we can be similarly lost, since we cannot after all know God's decrees? The answer to look to Christ is correct, but that is irrelevant since after all, the covenantally elect who fall away also looked to Christ while they were still within the church as saved people.

Of course, people can ignore that fact and continue to gain true assurance through looking at Christ, but just simple thinking will show that that hope is logically inconsistent given the teachings of the FV that covenantal election and justification, which is truly present in those who fall away, can be lost. Since one cannot know whether one is decretally elect of not, the fact that one look to Christ cannot be an indicator of whether one is truly saved or not, as the covenantally elect who fell away did looked to Christ too. Therefore, only perseverance in looking to Christ saves, making the action itself a work.

In conclusion, this "conversation" solves nothing with respect to the heresy of the Federal Vision. It does not absolve them of anything at all. It only shows how the FV confuses people with the use of their own lingo on the "objective covenant" thus making salvation conditional upon perseverance while at the same time using the same language of unconditionality and thus sounding orthodox, while limiting the unconditionality of the Covenant of Grace to God's decrees.

Paper: The Receiving of the Spirit: Monergism in Gal. 3:1-5

For my exegetical paper last semester, the passage I have chosen is Gal. 3:1-5. As most of us would probably know, many passages in Romans and Galatians lie at the heart of the controversy over the so-called "New Perspective on Paul." While the interpretation of this particular passage, Gal. 3:1-5, is not as hotly contested as passages such as Gal. 2:16, the implication of the teachings of Gal. 3:1-5 I am convinced has a lot to speak to us to the issues involved.

In this light, now that my exegetical paper has finally been released, I would like to share it with everyone here. Do note that as this is just a paper not a book, so do not expect me to interact and refute every single argument related to the New Perspective on Paul or anything along that line. The goal of the exegetical paper is to exegete the passage, not primarily to exegete it as a polemic against the New Perspective heresy.

An excerpt:

The book of Galatians is a fascinating polemical work from the pen of the Apostle Paul. According to New Testament Scholar James D.G. Dunn, in Galatians we have “theology in the raw, red-blooded theology, quintessential paulinism.” F. F. Bruce states that Galatians widely holds “primary of importance among the writings of Paul,” having close affinity with Paul’s letter to the Romans.

The still ongoing debate engendered by the New Perspective on Paul has focused on various texts in Romans and Galatians especially with regards to the phrase


ε


ξ εργων νομου. This phrase as well as the parallel phrase πιστεως Ιησου Χριστου has been much debated. In the midst of this debate, the significance of the passage of Gal 3:1-5 has been less noticed. In this light, I would like to look at the passage of Gal. 3:1-5 and see what it teaches us with regards to the issue of salvation and the law.

[more]

Contra the Joint FV Profession: Compiled

I have compiled and improved on the series analyzing the Joint FV Profession, with a new conclusion. The position paper can be seen here now.

Here is the added conclusion:

The FV manner of doing theology is dialectical as follows:

• Utilizing a one-dimensional hermeneutic — As a perceived rejection of Platonism, all manner of talking about church, covenant etc cannot have two ways of speaking about the matter
• Yet on the other hand, the FV (illegitimately) relegate to “mystery” all irrational expressions that come about through the use of their one dimensional hermeneutics, as being the expression of finitum non capax infinitum.
• This causes the creation of dialectics: 1) The Kierkegaardian dialectic between decree and covenant, election and reprobation, and 2) The Hegelian dialectic between the visible and invisible church

The FV as a pseudo-Reformed dialectical theology is totally irrational and unbiblical. It embraces irrationality with regards to God-given revelation, yet at the same time rationalistically speculate with regards to the doctrine of God in His intra-trinitarian relationships. It denies the visible/invisible church distinction, the Law/Gospel distinction, Justification by Faith Alone, and the Covenant of Works. Indeed, the FV is a form of Monocovenantal legalism to be avoided at all costs. Amen.

Contra the Joint FV Profession: The Next Christendom

The Next Christendom

We affirm that Jesus Christ is the King of kings, and the Lord of lords. We believe that the Church cannot be a faithful witness to His authority without calling all nations to submit themselves to Him through baptism, accepting their responsibility to obediently learn all that He has commanded us. We affirm therefore that the Christian faith is a public faith, encompassing every realm of human endeavor. The fulfillment of the Great Commission therefore requires the establishment of a global Christendom.

We deny that neutrality is possible in any realm, and this includes the realm of "secular" politics. We believe that the lordship of Jesus Christ has authoritative ramifications for every aspect of human existence, and that growth up into a godly maturity requires us to discover what those ramifications are in order to implement them. Jesus Christ has established a new way of being human, and it is our responsibility to grow up into it. (The Joint FV Statement)

From where has the FV arisen? In his book on the FV, Guy Prentiss Waters states that the FV seems to be derived from theonomy. The goal of the FV is societal transformation, and it seems that that is the tail wagging the dog. As he states:

There are hints among those sympathetic to the FV that their views accompany a discontent with the success of the theonomic project. ... The FV, then, represents a chastened theonomy, an attempt to reconstruct the project of theonomy to accommodate its greater goal of cultural transformation.^[1]

Instead of letting theology influence sociology and activism, the FV seems to be a movement that build its theology in service to its sociology — a sociology and missiology in search of a theology.

In the Joint FV Profession, the section speaking on the next Christendom is the third section discussed in the document, preceded only by the section on God and a section promoting the transformationalist postmillenial eschatology. Such an arrangement of topics seem to give credence to Waters' thesis that sociology drives the theology of the FV.

Nevertheless, let us analyze the transformationalist beliefs of the FV according to Scripture. We have already seen the distortion of the FV in their doctrine of God, and in their doctrine of the Church. As we will see, in line with their hyper-realist and one-dimensional hermeneutic, their doctrine of Church and State is similarly one-dimensional.

The section starts with the proposition that Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. Certainly that is something all Christians believe in. However, what does this lordship of Christ entail? How is Christ's lordship manifested in life and in the world? The Joint FV Profession states that Christ's lordship requires "the establishment of a global Christendom." However, is that truly the case?

To look deeper, we will examine this section under three headings: The Great Commission, What Christ's incarnation means for us, and the Lordship of Christ.

The Great Commission

The Great Commission is the commission Jesus Christ gave to the believers before He ascended into heaven. The most commonly cited proof-text for it can be found in Mt. 28:18-20.

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Mt.28:18 -ESV)

In the Great Commission, our Lord Jesus Christ calls believers to spread the Gospel and make disciples of all the nations. This is normally interpreted to refer to the various individuals from every nation who are saved, discipled, baptized and taught. Nations as entities cannot be in view here because there is no way to baptize a nation as only people can be baptized.

In the Joint FV Profession, we see a hyper-literalistic interpretation of the Great Commission. It is doubtful that the FV has in mind literally baptizing nations as entities, but as a shorthand to describe baptizing every individual in the nation as in the re-creation of Christendom as a political entity. This is however not the teaching of the Great Commission. Whatever one thinks of the transformationalist project, there is no way to find it in the Great Commission itself. The focus on the Great Commission is to "make disciples" and therefore the focus is salvation, not politics. Even if somehow majority or even all of the people in a nation turn to Christ, that does not by itself turn that nation into part of Christendom. Rather, that requires a certain connection between salvation and politics which states that Christians are saved in order to rule the world, an assertion that needs to be proven instead of assumed.

The FV interpretation of the Great Commission depends on a certain view of Christ's lordship and the goal of salvation. As we shall see, in both of these aspects the FV is seriously in error.

The Incarnation of Christ

What is the role of the incarnation of Christ? The biblical answer is that Christ was incarnated in order to became a man so that He could die on the cross for our sins. For God could not die, so Christ must take on a human form and a human nature in order to die. It is not without reason that the Cross is a symbol of Christianity, not the manger.

According to the FV however, Jesus Christ came and established "a new way of being human." This is to put it nicely a Socinian answer to the question of why Christ came. It is true that Jesus Christ being sinless is the perfect human, yet how does Christ define his perfect humanity but by perfect obedience to the law (Rom. 5:19, 2 Cor. 5:20, Mt. 5:17). Furthermore, this manner of perfect obedience to the law the Scriptures made plain that Adam as a type of Christ was to have in the beginning (Rom. 5: 12-21). Therefore, in effect Jesus Christ as the second Adam came and did what Adam was supposed to but failed to do in passing the test in obedience to God.

We have seen that the FV denies the Covenant of Works, and such a denial is consistent with the view that Jesus Christ came and established "a new way of being human." However, the biblical evidence points to Jesus coming to be and do what Adam was supposed to be and do. The FV is totally inconsistent in its affirmation on the one hand of the forensic nature of Christ's death, and on the other hand the Socinian statement that Christ came and established "a new way of being human." Illogicity however runs rampant in the FV, but for those of us who believe that God is rational in His ectypal revelation to us (Jn. 1:1, 14), such irrationality is contrary to the very nature of God and the nature of His revelation.^[2]

Christ' incarnation is therefore NOT meant to establish "a new way of being human." That is an error that flirts dangerously with the Eastern Orthodox view of theosis.

The Lordship of Christ

Christ exercised His lordship over the world in two different ways. Christ as the Creator and Ruler of the whole world rules in absolute authority. When Christ rules in His church however, He rules over the affairs in the church regarding spiritual matters. The NT epistles have instructions over the ruling and discipline in the church, but it nowhere prescribes that Christians are to attempt to take over the government to rule in Christ's stead. Rather, Christians are called to pray for all people and kings and all in high positions that we might lead "a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Tim. 2: 1-2). While Christians are certainly to obey God's law, we are not called to take over the government to impose God's law. Rather, "God judges those outside" (1 Cor. 5:13a). The role of the church has nothing to do with politics, and therefore salvation is not for the purpose of creating a political entity.

The Joint FV Profession denies the two ways in which Christ exercised His lordship. Instead, like the many doctrines we have seen, they flattened out the distinction such that Christ can only exercise His lordship in only one way. Since Christ is the Creator and Ruler of the whole world, Christians must bring the lordship of Christ to bear in every realm in the same way. Again, since neutrality is impossible in every realm, therefore every realm must be brought under the lordship of Christ in the exact same way. There is simply no room in the FV for Christ to exercise His lordship in other ways at all. Why must Christ be thought to not exercise His lordship through providence and natural law through men both regenerate and unregenerate in politics, instead of demanding that Christ must use Christians to bring forth the "next Christendom"?

Conclusion

In conclusion, the FV view of culture and Church-State relations is in error. Their transformationalist agenda has no theological backing. Should Christians participate in politics and try to bring society into greater conformity to God's law? Yes, for we believe that such glorifies God and creates a better society for our fellow human beings. But we do so as citizens just as any other citizen in the nation both regenerate and unregenerate. Christ does not exercise His lordship over the nations now as Judge, but as Sustainer sustaining the present order while drawing the elect unto salvation (2 Peter 3:5-9). Until that last day, it is still called Today - the day of salvation, where everyone is invited to come to the Lord for salvation (Heb. 4:6-8). Today is not the day of judgment, and therefore it is not the day for believers to rule the world.

Amen.

---

References:

[1] Guy Prentiss Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006), 296

[2] Ibid., 263-73.

Contra the Joint FV Profession: Apostasy and Assurance of Salvation

Apostasy

We affirm that apostasy is a terrifying reality for many baptized Christians. All who are baptized into the triune Name are united with Christ in His covenantal life, and so those who fall from that position of grace are indeed falling from grace. The branches that are cut away from Christ are genuinely cut away from someone, cut out of a living covenant body. The connection that an apostate had to Christ was not merely external.

We deny that any person who is chosen by God for final salvation before the foundation of the world can fall away and be finally lost. The decretally elect cannot apostatize.

One major irritant of the FV is their continual redefinition and equivocation of terms. As they have redefined "trust," so now the redefinition of terms from their normal theological usage continues. In this case, the term is "decretal."

In normal theological discourse, whatever God has decreed that He works out in his relation to the world and the elect. However, in FV parlance, whatever God has decreed is not worked out in relation to the world and the elect but rather worked out for the world and the elect in a secret manner to be somehow manifested at the end of time, as we have seen in the FV relation of decree and covenant. What is happening in the world and in the church bears little if any relation whatsoever to God's decrees, which are probably so mysterious it's a marvel the FVists knew they even exist in the first place.

It is in light of this dialectic that the paragraph on apostasy can make sense, for otherwise we end up with self-contradictory nonsense. For FVists, apostasy is apostasy from the "covenant" but not apostasy from "decretal election." So believers supposedly can be said to be able to truly apostatize and yet to not be able to apostatize. Seeing that those who are decretally elect are those who will persevere, the whole statement is reduced to a meaningless tautology. In Reformed theology, decree and covenant are correlated, so therefore those who are not "decretally elect" are already fixed in the world (just not known by us) and will most certainly not persevere. In FV theology, those who are not "decretally elect" are not fixed except in God's mind and their perseverance is certain only inasmuch as God has decreed them elect.

The implication of this for assurance of salvation is clear. Under the FV, there is absolutely no sure way of knowing that one is eternally saved. One can only continue in being faithful and hope that one dies faithful. There is no comfort at all available from God because it is impossible to know God's decrees before the final judgment. In Reformed theology however, comfort from God is possible because God's Spirit testifies with our spirits that we are the children of God (Rom. 8:16), as God's decree is worked out in relation to the world and the elect. Such is of course subjective, but being subjective does not make it false, the FV aversion to anything subjective notwithstanding.

The FV understanding of apostasy gives cold comfort to believers. Believers do not start off from knowing they are saved, but merely knowing that they are saved now and will continue being saved as long as they do not apostatize, which is indeed a "terrifying reality" to them. Much warmer indeed is the Reformed understanding of apostasy that states that those who apostatize were never true believers in the first place. While delusion is always possible, we can know that the Spirit's witness is testimony to our salvation, and that those who apostatize never had the Spirit's witness in the first place. We do good works because we are saved, not that we are faithful in order to continue being saved.

The FV's doctrine of apostasy is dialectical in nature. In light of their other doctrines, assurance of salvation in FV circles is conditional. Sure, the condition may be quite doable since the FV do not demand perfect obedience, but conditional it still is. The error is not lessened at all because of the psychological outlooks of church members who face a less demanding condition for salvation and assurance of salvation.

[to be continued]