» News: News Roundup Continued
CRC: The Christian Reformed Church celebrated its 150th anniversary with a worship service attended by about 14,000 worshippers. The CRC annual synod meets this week at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI. The delegates elected Rev. Joel Boot as its president; Rev. Cecil Van Niejenhuis as its vice president, elder Henry Baron as first clerk, and Rev. Jake Kuipers as second clerk.
ARP: The 203rd annual synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian church met last week; details will be published as RN is able to collect further information. ARP is also planning to plant a mission church in Appalachia.
OPC: The Seventy-fourth General Assembly meets this week at Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa, beginning at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 13.
RCA: Wes Granberg-Michaelson, the general secretary of the RCA's Synod told the gathered commissioners that the RCA should become a "missional" church. Says Granberg-Michaelson, "How do we take good, old wine--the core of our Reformed tradition--and pour it into new wineskins--missional styles and structures that engage the culture with the power of the gospel? We need models of ministry--new churches and revitalized congregations--that combine the best strengths of Reformed identity with the most courageous expressions of missional engagement."
URCNA: General Synod planned for July 9-14, 2007.
PCA: Former Moderator Sam Duncan, ruling elder at First Presbyterian Church in Hattiesburg, MS writes a summary of this week's PCA General Assembly. Speaking of the Federal Vision controversy, he summarizes, "For the layman, who is not familiar with this topic, the Federal Vision basically teaches that membership in a local church makes one elect; once one is elect, his salvation may be lost; baptism results in regeneration; and justification is achieved through both faith and good works."
53 Comments:
Note: sorry for the delay in finishing the news roundup. Also, note that we added a few items to the end of the "PCA" section of the roundup posted Friday.
re: Duncan's summary
This is why this issue needs to be tabled. NOBODY teaches this! At least not in the PCA. The fact that either 1) people are ignorant enough on the issue to publish such statements or 2) they are deliberately miscasting the views of FV Men shows that more discussion is needed, and proves that the commitee needs to include FV proponents for the mere fact that it would help promote understanding between parties.
I'm no fan of the FV - far from it - but I'll willingly acknowledge that was one of the most inaccurate descriptions of it that I've ever read.
Anne in Fort Worth
You told me to tell you when you were not being objective. Look at this story. You summarize five denominations' National Meetings all with bland statements, or a quote from the general secretary.
Then you summarize what is going on in the PCA by selectively quoting one church's website, obviously hoping to cause it embarrassment.
And the thing is, this is an inadequate summary, but with the possible exception of baptismal regeneration, all these elements can easily be found in FV teaching (depending of course how "elect" is defined, but that's exactly what's at stake).
Honestly, I think you guys (Barlow et al) may be trying to be objective, but are simply failing.
Are you all members of Providence Presbyterian in St. Louis?
This is not to say that you cannot be right about things, only that you are not fooling anyone about being an "objective" news site.
Chris Hutchinson
Pastor Hutchinson,
So sorry to have disappointed you. To give some background, there wasn't going to be anything about the PCA in this continuing part of the roundup - we covered the PCA on Friday, but we received a tip that the church in Hattiesburg was announcing soon that it had called a new pastor. In looking for an announcement on their website we found the church's newsletter and noticed this article written by a former moderator of the PCA and the current parliamentarian for this year's GA and thought it relevant to report. Perhaps you disagree, and that's fine, and I appreciate your telling us.
As for being objective, nowhere in this roundup did we make an evaluative comment. It sounds as though you are looking too hard to prove our coverage biased. Should we not have quoted any of Duncan's summary at all? Should we have quoted the entire summary? Should we not have reported on it? We'd love to report on the contents of every church's newsletter, but we lack the resources. Just as we provided a pull quote from the RCA's general secretary, we provided a pull quote from Duncan's article.
Again, we can't promise that we can cover everything, and insofar as bias results from data selection, that's unavoidable. But what we do report as "news" will be reported as fairly as possible, and hopefully we lived up to that here.
Thanks so much for writing in, it helps us to think through our coverage all the more.
Again, it's time to blame the critic rather than the issue.
here once again, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of the critic being attacked for not understanding the debate.
Oh, that we all could possess such gnostic insights into the DaWright Code.
OK, thanks for the explanation. Look, I'm not a journalist, but when I have tried to make objective reports about church events in the past, others have pointed out to me that I needed a good editor.
In other words, I needed to learn when NOT to report something as a fair summary just because you happened to run across it. I do think that RE Duncan being a former moderator makes it more newsworthy, but again, this site has appeared to me to have a pro-FV bias from the beginning. And if you guys are pro-FV, how are you going to escape that when you report on it? Are you all, like, the one group in the world who can do that successfully?
That's all I am saying.
But you may be right that I am probably being too suspicious in the current environment, and will try to give it some more time and the judgment of charity...
Still, are you all members of the same church? If so, that would probably hinder the ability to be objective. Right?
Chris H.
Relax dude.
You're right that everyone has personal beliefs; the claim is that RN's reporting will be fair and objective, not that we personally don't have biases as people and as Reformed Christians that we constantly have to keep in check. We sincerely hope that our coverage has not been "pro-FV" but we have received letters from readers who view even our coverage of the CREC, as a denomination, to imply something about our approach to the FV. Our basic approach is this - there are hundreds of blogs giving this or that side of any issue. But there are almost no sites that try to report what's happening and what people are discussing without constantly interjecting editorial opinion. We will have editorials and will clearly mark them as such, but the primary thing that we think makes our efforts worthwhile is that we're trying to provide a service that has so far not been provided in the conservative world of Reformed churches that we've set out to cover.
Thanks again for the comments; giving unbiased coverage to events is very difficult and we will no doubt fail at times for precisely the reasons you identified - that each person is biased. But hopefully we can keep that in check and provide a service to the churches.
If anything, I thought the coverage provided was slanted the other way. I was not happy about RN re-posting false reports regarding these issues and potentially lending credence to those claims by virtue of it being reported.
You can't win them all RN, but thanks for making the effort. The work done here is much appreciated.
Thanks for the encouragement (and the critiques). We need both.
Ahhh, the Turretinesque style clarity in RE Duncan's synopsis of the FV is quite refreshing! Sheesh...
Hogwash! Let's not skate the issue. Duncan is a member of said church's session and utterly and completely misrepresents (on EVERY point) what the FV teaches.
His statement is just plain WRONG! I don't really care what die of the issue you are on. It is simply a fabrication and an attempt to spread lies...
Please try not to impute motives in your comments. Sam Duncan's internal state of mind is not in evidence in this discussion, but the content of his statements are.
Y'know, William, it's possible Duncan just isn't much for computers. It's surprising how many people still avoid them, and certainly wouldn't spend hours reading articles, reports, etc. online.
Considering how the FV itself cannot - or at least up till now HAS not - managed to provide a simple statement, listing its doctrinal distinctives in a clear and comprehensible way, it's not especially surprising that confusion reigns.
An awful lot of people, including elders in the PCA, couldn't tell you what the F and the V stand for, never mind what the kerfluffle's about. They're not going to buy books on the subject, they're not going to read long articles in theological journals, they're not even going to spend any time squinting at a computer monitor.
They're going to pay attention to whoever puts information in front of them in a brief, readable, comprehensible form.
Thus far, this is not exactly where the FV shines, is it?
Do what you've always done, and you'll get what you've always had.
So far what the FV has "done" has garnered them confusion and mistrust.
Everyone else in the world, or even the PCA, ain't changing anytime soon. If the FV doesn't like what it's getting, it needs to take steps to change what it's doing.
Based upon the past, however, I can't say as how I'm particularly optimistic about this happening.
Anne in Fort Worth
"Considering how the FV itself cannot - or at least up till now HAS not - managed to provide a simple statement, listing its doctrinal distinctives in a clear and comprehensible way, it's not especially surprising that confusion reigns."
A: "You're a movement"
B: "No, we're not"
A: "You beleive X!"
B: "No we don't, you misunderstand"
A: "Well, provide us with a simple statement of your distinctives"
B: "Um, you said it would be bad if we were a movement"
"Thus far, this is not exactly where the FV shines, is it?"
That's not what the "FV" "wants" to "do".
They'd rather do biblical theology in newsletters, have occasional conferences, and discuss stuff. But having a conference apparently means you're a movement.
I'd be highly suspicious of any FV "statement of faith" being written, since it would be a step in the wrong direction.
Hey Anne
FV is a label, useful only in that it makes it easier to refer to a group of men who have published a bunch of books (mostly separately)and some have spoken at the same conferences at the same time. One need not logon but read on to discover their views. This is nothing new. What is new is that "scholars" are so quick to refute books they haven't even read (I have to assume that is the case as only a dim-wit would read these men's books and summarize their teachings as Mr. Duncan has.)
Everybody needs to slow down enough to actually read a few books by Wilson, Wilkins, Jordan, etc. Then if you don't agree, so be it. And please don't expect a PR campaign--would you expect such an atrocity from men of old?
Ginny in Montana
And lastly, the accusation of "confusion" gets at the problem with the original MVP report, and the defense against the Robert's Rules issue from humbleanswers:
Why is FV confusing the churches? Is it because opponents of it are spreading gossip, refusing to interview proponents, and putting the worst possible construction on viewpoints? Perhaps. The MVP report, the earliest PCA report basically said that "We can see we need to study something so controversial: and we know its controversial because guys we like all say its bad, and guys we like are doing things to stop the FV".
If the FV is confusing the churches in the manner humbleanswers implies justified an imbalanced committee, then a study committee is the WRONG instrument for the controversy.
I'm still confused over 24 hour day views within the bible and confessions, even after the committee reports. But those were balanced committees.
Suit yourselves.
Do what you've always done; get what you've always had.
I did say I wasn't optimistic, didn't I? ;^)
For good reason, obviously.
Anne in Fort Worth
The best possible thing that you could say about Sam Duncan's statement is that it manifests gross professional negligence. He's a former moderator, RE, and a lawyer, but he's clueless and way outside his realm of competence in saying anything about the FV, which is inexcusable if you're going to say anything about it under the current circumstances. He should have remembered Proverbs 17:28.
Mr Duncan is 'clueless'?
Wow - that's one way to silence a critic.
just call him dumb.
perhaps he's read a lot of the NPP/FV stuff and these are his conclusions. Perhaps the pro-NPP/FVers won't stand by their former writings b/c they'd have to defend their latent Roman Catholocism.
"perhaps he's read a lot of the NPP/FV stuff and these are his conclusions."
His conclusions are wrong, though. For all its manifold errors, the FV doesn't actually teach salvation by works, though it's true it can sound as if that's a logical conclusion.
What it does do is say that the LORD begins a good work in some Christians but then removes Himself, therefore not completing it. This is neatly summed up in the AAPC's Position Paper (Revised) in #8: "God has decreed from the foundation of the world all that comes to pass, including who would be saved and lost for all eternity. Included in His decree, however, is that some persons, not destined for final salvation, will be drawn to Christ and His people only for a time. These, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ’s cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit in his common operations through Word and Sacrament (Hebrews 6:4-6; Matthew 25:14ff; etc.)."
Christ's death purchased spiritual blessings for some of the reprobate? THAT is a significant departure from traditional Reformed doctrine.
Most all of the confusion over the FV arises when it's not understood that it says the LORD starts a work in some people that He doesn't complete. The ramifications of this are breathtaking in scope, as it effects election, justification, sanctification, adoption, and more.
[firmly] But it is not works righteousness as is commonly understood, and it does not teach that the LORD is taking any sort of 'wait and see' approach as to who winds up with Him in glory. According to the FV He knows precisely who will be with Him for He chose them, works in them, and sustains them until the end.
But some people He chose to work in for a time but not until the end.
Ugh.
This is also a sharp departure from traditional Reformed doctrine.
There's plenty to criticize about the FV, but it doesn't help when people criticize phantom errors instead of the real errors.
Anne
"Christ's death purchased spiritual blessings for some of the reprobate? THAT is a significant departure from traditional Reformed doctrine."
I guess I have difficulty seeing how that, in itself, is any sort of departure from traditional Reformed doctrine, unless one is saying that the "spiritual blessings" here are the univocally same initial blessings enjoyed by the elect. But no one is saying that, are they?
I was raised a conservative Presbyterian and was always taught that whatever good things that human beings enjoy in our world - common grace, temporary faith, all blessings short of saving gifts - only come to them through the redemptive work of Christ and his mediatorial kingship over the world.
I know our Protestant Reformed brothers balk at this, but it's pretty standard stuff, isn't it?
Anne,
those are insightful points, and I appreciate them.
I'm sure the NPP/FVers will be glad that we know they don't hold to works-salvation, but that they hold to a doctrine of God (and his decrees) that is like the daisy (He loves me, he loves me not...). Hmmm - we used to call those arminians.
As you point out, these are radical departures from Confessional Christianity. And, for those two examples (above), men should not be allowed to be TEs in the PCA who hold those views.
Thank you-
Bill Lamkin
there is a third option to my two above that I realized later. And that is that FV oponents know that FV men "say" that they don't believe those things, but the FV oponents don't believe them. Thus in order to protect the flock, they tell the flock to believe what they beleive the FV men really believe dispite what the FV men are saying they believe. But what I'm saying is that in order for the commitee's work to be truly productive, It would have to involve the two sides actually sitting down to find out what each other actually believes. Then, the commitee could effectively communicate to the rest of the PCA what FV guys actually believe, and make a theological judgement. The way things stand now, judgements are being made against theoretical beliefs.
Joel, I don't suppose they are, at least I most certainly hope and trust not. However, the traditional Reformed view, at least so far as I've read and heard over several years, is that basically there are sheep and there are goats. This is the distinguishing hallmark of Reformed theology, if you think about it, that the LORD chose some to be sheep and some to be goats. Christ came to collect His sheep. He lived and died for the sake of His sheep, though His life and death also has provided indirect benefits for the goats.
There is the LORD's salvific grace, and His common grace. The first is provided solely to His sheep, and once given is never withdrawn. The latter is for everyone else, to a greater or lesser extent.
ISTM the FV either has the LORD's salvific grace being provided to some people and then withdrawn, or has created a subset of "common" grace that is not actually "common" at all, but instead given only to certain people, mimicking His salvific grace.
The impression I've gotten is that this point hasn't been nailed down too well as yet, and there's a fair amount of disagreement in the FV as to the nature of this grace that doesn't actually save anyone.
It's a work in progress, so to speak.
Is that an inaccurate statement on my part? I'm certainly open to correction on it.
Anne
P.S. Apart from that, was my attempt at explaining the doctrinal distinctive of the FV reasonably fair? I truly do try to portray it fairly and accurately.
Archibald alexander
"I am of opinion, therefore, that these transient impressions should be ascribed to the common operations of the Spirit of God, and may have some inexplicable connection with the future conversion and salvation of the person.
"Whether those who are never converted are the subjects of these religious impressions, as well as those who are afterwards brought to faith in Christ, is a question not easily answered. That they experience dreadful alarms and pungent convictions at times, and also tender drawings, cannot be doubted; but whether those "chosen in Christ" are not, in their natural state, subject to impressions which others never experience, must remain undetermined, since we know so little of the real state of the hearts of most men;"
"we do profess to believe and maintain, that there is a gradual preparation, by common grace, for regeneration, which may be going on from childhood to mature age; "
Anne,
Regarding your comment: "... or has created a subset of "common" grace that is not actually "common" at all, but instead given only to certain people."
Why should we think that every aspect or form of common grace must be received by every person, in order for it to be common grace?
Bryan
I also see this all as expansion of something the WCF said little about. So the FV has tried to lay out careful (or not) delineations of varieties of "common operations" or "intermediate" grace between common and special grace, saying way more than the confessions have.
Have you ever noticed how little the confessions say about eschatology? They lay out some basic grounds, and then all kinds of positions on this have been held in the churches. Old conservative presbies split over it (foolishly: the BPC and the OPC).
Aside from one guy on the purtianboard, nobody is arguing that its wrong for pastors to teach specific eschatological viewpoints from the pulpit, and make applications of those views, even if they're tentative. And I certainly can understand someone being upset by a preterist taking away a cherished "last days" verse. But that doesn't make the preterist a hyperpreterist, or a heretic.
Bryan, clearly not, seeing as how the LORD has sovereignly placed people in vastly different circumstances on the earth. Some of them, such as myself, have blessings dumped on them to an embarrassing degree, while others never know a well day, suffer enormously, then die without having ever heard the gospel.
Some people never hear the gospel and so never turn to Christ in faith, while others are raised attending a gospel-preaching church in a believing family yet also never turn to Christ in faith. The latter had far more common grace meted out to them, surely, since they had the privilege of hearing the outward call.
Some people reject it roundly, others don't actually reject it but don't do anything about it one way or the other, and some appear to have accepted it but in fact have not. The response of the reprobate to the outward call is as varied as any other facet of humanity.
However, it's a mistake, I believe, to say those who appear to have accepted Christ but fall away received some sort of special grace denied the others.
Anne
people who ultimately fall away were never decredaly elect. But if they were baptized members of the visible church they certainly recieved "graces" that those outside the church did not recieve (ie: preaching, discipline, sacraments, etc). But these people were never "effectually called" in the terms of the WCF. But the whole point is that it has not been given to humans to know who the elect are and whether people have been effectually called or not. We can only witness the visible church. I realize this is crude, but the forum is limiting.
Anne, this quote from William Perkins (in his 'Golden Chaine') might help a little bit:
“When as a reprobate professeth thus much of the Gospell, though indeed he be a goate, yet hee is taken for one of Gods sheepe: he is kept in the same pastures, and is folded in the same fold with them. He is counted a Christian of the children of God, & so he taketh himselfe to be.” – William Perkins (1558-1602)
How much grace does God show to some goats? That seems to me the main question that the FV asks.
Anne, I don't think anyone means to say that the salvific grace intended for sheep goes to goats and is later withdrawn. If that's what FV folks are saying, then I agree something is amiss confessionally-speaking.
Rather it is, as you suggest, a matter of how far God's common grace goes with some subset of individuals, particularly in connection with the visible administration of the covenant of grace and outward profession of the gospel.
So, for instance, Herman Witsius rightly maintains that Christ died with the absolute intent of making full satisfaction only for the sins of the elect and for the purpose of bringing them alone to actual salvation.
Nevertheless, Witsius also maintains that "the obedience and sufferings of Christ are of such worth, that all, without exception, who would come to him, might find perfect salvation in him" since Christ's work and passion "considered in themselves, are, on account of the infinite dignity of the person [of Christ], of that value, as to have been sufficient for redeeming not only all and every man in particular, but many myriads besides" (The Economy of the Covenants 2.9.5, 2).
In this context Witsius also states that "the suretiship and satisfaction of Christ, have also been an occasion of much good, even to the reprobate" and so even they "obtain at times many and excellent, though not saving gifts of the holy Spirit, that 'they have escaped the pollutions of this world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.'"
According to Witsius, Christ's work is not merely an accidental cause of these great benefits, benefits which somehow remain outside of the intention of God. Rather, the reprobate experience these benefits "by the appointment of God" since "nothing falls out by accident with respect to the intention of God, everything being according to his determinate counsel" (2.9.4; see also Turretin, Institutes 19.14.11).
Add to that what the Puritan John Downame writes,
Of the Grace of Profession
And this which is the first and meanest of God's favours, is yet a favour not to be contemned, it being an excellent and glorious thing to be (though but outwardly) professors of Christ for:
First, hereby they are severed from Turks, pagans, and heathen men, and in name are become "Christians," for that title the Holy Ghost gives to all professors (Acts 11:26).
Secondly, they are now received into the Lord's house and are said to be "within" (see 1 Cor 5:12-13), whereas all others that are of the church are said to be "without."
Thirdly, being members of the visible church dwelling with and among them, they are made partakers of many goodly graces and benefits, which God pours upon his Church, even upon the reprobate and wicked, for the elects' sake that are among them, as the Psalmist says, that "in his Temple he utters all his glory" (Ps 29:9). The third thing is, it suffices for the making of a Church, if they be professors only, this being but a bare outward calling common to the reprobate.
Fourthly, they must be professors of Christ, professing that in words, the having whereof indeed makes men truly Christians. So the Apostle defines it, Ephesians 1:1 where, instead of naming the Church of Ephesus (for to the outward Church he writes) he uses this periphrasis, "to the saints that are in Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus"; and 1 Corinthians 1:2, "To the Church of God which is in Corinth, sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling." In regard whereof, the same Apostle calls Christ "the foundation" even of the visible Church (1 Cor 3:11).
Downame also has an extensive discussion of temporary faith that's worth considering.
I'd also add that "sheep" and "goats" isn't the only biblical image we have to work with. There's the parable of the soils, which suggests different measures of grace (and is the typical Reformed proof text for "temporary faith"). There's also the wheat and tares, which suggests that in terms of how we interact with and address those in the kingdom field, we shouldn't be in too much of a hurry to draw hard and fast distinctions, pastorally speaking.
Part of what the FV is about, as I understand it, is a proper confidence that God's Spirit is at work in the ordinary means he has given to the church, that outside of the church visible "there is no ordinary possibility of salvation," and that to the church visible belongs "the privilege of being under God's special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding 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."
In any case, whatever one might think of the details of what some of the FV proponents have said, I don't think it should be surprising that some hear and read FV materials and think, "Hey, this sounds like the kind of robust Reformed ecclesiology that you find in the old Scots, English Presbyterians, and some Puritans."
Right, Jon, but they're not actually sheep. They never were sheep. They were goats when they were conceived and they remained goats throughout their time on earth, yet Christ came for the sake of His sheep, not the goats.
The FV seems determined to make some of the goats special to Christ, though for the life of me I can't think why.
However, that's a digression, the "why" of the matter. Right now I'm trying to ascertain if my general understanding of the FV falls into the acceptable category; to reiterate both what it's not and what it is...
It is not works righteousness. The FV does not say people can work their way to heaven.
It does not say that our eternal destination is up in the air.
It does say that Christ's atoning death purchased some type of spiritual blessings for some of the reprobate.
It does say that the Holy Spirit begins a "good work" in some of the reprobate (often referred to as Non-Elect Covenant Members) but at some point withdraws and does not return, so they eventually and inevitably fall away.
Is this a fair rendering?
Anne
Anne,
Thanks for your reply. I'm glad we agree that common grace need not be equally distributed in order to qualify as common. I'm also glad you agree that hearing the gospel (at least with the outward call) is part of common grace. We also agree that being raised in a gospel-preaching church and in a believing family is an expression of common grace. The point in question, in your view, concerns whether those who appear to have accepted Christ but then fall away, received some sort of special grace that was not given to those who never appeared to have accepted Christ.
By "received some sort of grace" I assume you mean *in order* to appear to have accepted Christ, and not *as a result* of appearing to have accepted Christ. I hope we agree that those who appear to have accepted Christ, as a result of their participation in the covenant community, receive forms of common grace that are denied to those who do not participate in the covenant community. So, according to your position, if I'm understanding you correctly, those who appear to have accepted Christ but later fall away came to their state of appearing to have accepted Christ only by the common grace that all those hearing the gospel receive. This would imply that those who appear to have accepted Christ, and who as a result enjoy many of the benefits of participation in the covenant community, acquired these benefits in a semi-Pelagian manner. Are you comfortable with that implication?
Bryan
"they have escaped the pollutions of this world"
That's a good reminder that the reprobate within the church, who receive common operations of the Spirit, receive more than just "common grace"
Joel, ISTM though that since in the OT God's elect are presented as sheep (as in "I will gather My sheep throughout the earth" - which is completely from memory, so doubtless not a literal quote, but something close to it's in Isaiah), and Christ's most powerful language regarding His elect refer to them as sheep, and He instructs Peter to feed His sheep, it's not unreasonable to take sheep and goats as a benchmark analogy. IOW, all those other analogies should square with the sheep/goat motif.
There has to be something upon which to hang our exegetical hats. Reformed theology has taken "You do not believe because you are not My sheep" as a benchmark verse. Arminians tie themselves up in knots trying to make that mean the precise opposite, i.e. "You are not My sheep because you do not believe." (Have you ever read or heard them try to do so? It's both funny and pathetic.)
And some FV'ers might find the FV ecclesiology robust, but it appears to be at the expense of a robust Reformed soteriology.
That's just my opinion, though.
First I'm trying to get basic talking points agreed upon.
Anne
"I hope we agree that those who appear to have accepted Christ, as a result of their participation in the covenant community, receive forms of common grace that are denied to those who do not participate in the covenant community."
I agree with that, just as those who live in a loving family have received a form of common grace denied those who were raised in a Russian orphanage, for example. It's a temporal, external grace, though, not an inworking of the Holy Spirit.
Doggone it! How do y'all do that?
I keep trying to not debate the rightness or wrongness of the FV until the by-jingo'd talking points are established but then do it anyway. ARGH!
Anne (who has GOT to get off the computer, plan dinner, and go to the grocery store; she doesn't do this for a living, unfortunately.)
pduggie:
the matter of eschatology and the matter of soteriology are hardly the same by comparison.
NO ONE thinks of soteriological debates as little "in house" arguments in the manner that we think of eschatological debates.
One allows for latitude in opinion (eschatology) while one does not allow for various interpretations (soteriology).
Mr Barlow quotes Perkins to make some sort of point.
But, the picture that Perkins paints only proves that an adopted 'goat' is really a predestined 'sheep.' Thank the Lord for that!
Bahhh
By Grace,
Bill Lamkin
If ive learned anything from this debate is that the issues surrounding defining merit, the Covenant of Works, Israel, and the visible/invisible church are a longstanding in-house argument.
In which house? The PCA?
Were there long-term arguments and disagreements raging in the PCA regarding merit, the Covenant of Works, Israel, and the visible/invisible church prior to the intromission of the FV/NPP?
I'm asking. I really don't know, not belonging to the PCA.
Anne
Anne, I'm perfectly at home with the sheep and goats stuff. I'm just suggesting that, while the sheep/goats paradigm is true and important, it's not everything there is to say.
Your summary of FV stuff above seems pretty fair.
On the "why" question, a couple of suggestions:
[1] as a way of trying to bring together all of the biblical data about how God is at work in the world, without losing or explaining away bits
[2] as a way of underscoring that God is really at work in and through the church visible as the place in which salvation is ordinarily found, even though that work is only saving for those elect to glory
[3] as a way of safeguarding the idea that the substance of the sacraments remains the same for all recipients in terms of what is objectively offered, even if not all receive the offer (see this is a corollary of the free offer of the gospel more generally)
[4] as a way of underscoring the necessity of repentance and faith on the part of those who have received the covenant signs and seals, for if they spurn God's grace, it will be worse for them in the day of judgment, and furthermore, expecting that such underscoring is part of how God brings his elect to saving faith
[5] as a way of dealing with the reality of apostasy without shortchanging or waving away the fact that among those who apostatize are some through whom God worked powerfully
There may be other "why"s at work, but those are what pop immediately to mind.
In the reformed world generally.
I'll happily accept "pretty fair", Joel. Thank you. ;^)
Also, thank you for the off-the-top-of-your-head list of positives you see as goals of the FV. Some of them I was familiar with, but a couple of them I wasn't.
Anne
Anne;
You asked:
"Were there long-term arguments and disagreements raging in the PCA regarding merit, the Covenant of Works, Israel, and the visible/invisible church prior to the intromission of the FV/NPP?"
NO. Not with men who knew what they believed before being ordained. There have been some on 'theological journeys' who have not yet worked out their views on these issues before ordination and they tend to be the most confused/confusing.
Bill Lamkin
Well, I was wondering about that. It had puzzled me that after spending years hanging around with PCA'ers I'd never heard of intradenominational arguments and debates over those topics until after the FV/NPP got ramped up.
No offense to the FV supporters here, but I'm unclear how importing such dissension into a denomination can be viewed as helping it.
Anne
BTW, I was mulling over the 'common operations of the Spirit', and would y'all agree with this?
It's the same 'operation of the Spirit' that causes some people to be devout Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Hindu, Wiccans, etc. IOW, the 'Christian' reprobate are 'Christian' solely because of temporal circumstances....they "believe" what they hear in the situation in which they have been placed. Other unregenerated people, however, have been placed in temples, mosques, meeting rooms, whathaveyou.
Surely the 'common operation of the Spirit' is that which makes humans instruments of worship? As has been so truly said, we each of us worship someone or something.
But the reprobate in the Church haven't been 'worked on/in' by the Holy Spirit in any manner different than the reprobate placed anywhere else.
Anne
Anne, there were certainly lots of ongoing discussions on at least some of those issues. I'm thinking in particular of the place of merit in the covenant of works, whether "covenant of works" is the best terminology, the place of grace before the fall, and closely related issues.
The disparate views among faculty at WTS, Covenant, RTS, Calvin, WestCal, etc., are long-standing and well-known and have their roots in older and wider discussions, including the Dutch Reformed.
But these were matters of mostly friendly in-house discussion, though there have been various tensions under the surface. Yet nothing was "raging" until recently.
While I can completely understand why confusions may have erupted over a broader sense of "elect" as explicated by some FV figures or aspects of sacramental theology, I'm flabbergasted that some of these other, seemingly peripheral matters have become so acrimonious.
On your last comment, Anne, I can agree from one perspective - from the standpoint of their final ends, the sharp, bright line stands unalterably between those who are eternally saved and all the rest.
As the Spirit operates in the world, there are varying degrees of common grace shed abroad and, within outward administration of the covenant of grace, that common grace reaches its highest zenith short of salvation.
So, from one vital perspective, among those who are not saved, the Spirit's operations differ only as a matter of degree, while the Spirit's operation in those elect to glory is a operation that differs in kind or substance.
That being said, I still agree with Calvin in the Institutes (3.21.5-7) when he writes of the outward administration of the covenant (which he terms "general election"):
The reason why the general election of the people is not always firmly ratified, readily presents itself - viz. that on those with whom God makes the covenant, he does not immediately bestow the Spirit of regeneration, by whose power they persevere in the covenant even to the end. The external invitation, without the internal efficacy of grace which would have the effect of retaining them, holds a kind of middle place between the rejection of the human race and the election of a small number of believers. The whole people of Israel are called the Lord's inheritance, and yet there were many foreigners among them. Still, because the covenant which God had made to be their Father and Redeemer was not altogether null, he has respect to that free favor rather than to the perfidious defection of many.
Elsewhere, commenting on Deuteronomy 10:15, Calvin writes:
See here, I pray you, the election of God, whereby he putteth such difference between the lineage of Abraham and all the rest of the world, that he made the same lineage his church of purpose, that the signs of his favor and of his covenant should remain there, and that his name should be called upon there, so as he offered the promises of salvation to them that descended of the same race and lineage... Lo, here, I say, a general election that belonged to all the children of Abraham, and yet was that grace to be confirmed by faith but in a part of them... Now then, God's general election which extended to the whole people was not sufficient, but it behooved every man to be partaker of it in his own peculiar behalf. And how was that to be done? By faith... Lo, here, the double election of God. The one extendeth to the whole people, because circumcision was given indifferently to all, both small and great, and the promises likewise were common. But yet for all that, God was fain to add a second grace, by touching the hearts of his chosen, namely of such as he listed to reserve to himself, and those came unto him, and he made them to receive the benefit that was offered them.
This way of speaking carries through the Reformed tradition into the early covenant theologians (such as Rollock and Olevian) and then into the scholastics. There are shifts in terminology and some detail, but the basic perspective remains in place.
So, the outward administration of the covenant, while not at all blurring the line between those who are elected to glory and those who are not, nonetheless, does provide another perspective from which to view matters, inasmuch as God purposes in electing some to glory are ordinarily worked out through the operations of grace within the church visible.
That's where being almost 56 (my birthday's next week and I like dark chocolate) helps, Joel, as over the decades I've learned that taken as a whole people are naturally argumentative and combative, and the most violent contention is almost guaranteed to be over peripheral points.
The tales I could tell from my years in the Junior League, Camp Fire, etc.!
Majoring in the minors is humanity's default position.
Anne
I see these all as a highly specialized species of the common grace debates and the free offer of the gospel debates. Concerns similar to those of anti-free offer and anti-common grace are on the anti-FV side.
I absolutely agree with you, Joel. There is most assuredly a difference between being placed so as to hear the outward call - especially when one hears it on a near-constant basis - and not being so generously placed.
Should have included that point but neglected to. Sorry.
It's a frightening thought, that there are those who sit for years in the assembly of saints ("in Christ" in a manner of speaking), hearing the Word, taking communion, etc. yet never actually, truly believe.
Talk about having absolutely, positively NO excuse whatsoever! The LORD put them right where they needed to be to hear about Him and His glorious work on the behalf of a lost world, yet they still reject Him?
Gives me the heebie-jeebies to even think about it.
Anne
Post a Comment
<< Home