# Guess the source of these quotes:



## nominalist747 (Oct 9, 2006)

"The covenant of grace is not made with the elect, but with believers and their children-and 'not all who are Israel are Israel.' Falling away from the covenant blessings is a real, not a hypothetical, danger. But it is only a danger for those who reject the means of grace and reject the promises to which they are entitled by covenantal incorporation."

"Christ is offered to all of us in the preached Word. Faith is the only thing that can see Him there. Christ is presented to us in baptism and the Lord's Supper. Faith [not faithfulness or fidelity] receives Him. If a man has no faith, then all he has is words, water, and a tiny meal..." 

So who said these? Please, try to guess before you google. Which one of these sounds more orthodox?


----------



## tewilder (Oct 9, 2006)

And which one of them then said this?:

"Low Zwinglians would say that the sacraments are 'only' a memorial, 'only' a ritual. A high Zwinglian like Leithart would say that the sacraments are rituals, among the most powerful forces in the world. In this chapter, Leithart is telling us that ritual has the power to depose kings. It has the power to usher in a postmodern era, and we believe in faith that it will. In fact, evangelical ritual is so powerful that it can even make true postmodernists out of academic postmodernists, a sons of Abraham out of rocks thing."

And, while we are quoting qaint sayings, also said this:

"The one who believes without chewing and swallowing has the same kind of faith that the devils do."



[Edited on 10-9-2006 by tewilder]


----------



## nominalist747 (Oct 9, 2006)

OK, but so what? You quote someone on what Leithart says about ritual. I quoted two direct statements about the sacraments and faith. Just guess who said the two quotes I gave...What someone may or may not have said about what someone else said about ritual is not the point--the point is what someone has to say directly about the role of faith in the sacraments. Thank you.


----------



## nominalist747 (Oct 9, 2006)

Here's another one: 

"Members of the Christ confessing covenant community who have received the sign and seal of the covenant are morally obligated to live in fidelity to that community and to make regular and consistent use of the means of grace." Again, can you spot the orthodox guy?


----------



## tewilder (Oct 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by nominalist747_
> OK, but so what? You quote someone on what Leithart says about ritual. I quoted two direct statements about the sacraments and faith. Just guess who said the two quotes I gave...What someone may or may not have said about what someone else said about ritual is not the point--the point is what someone has to say directly about the role of faith in the sacraments. Thank you.



"Someone" is Wilson, and "ritual" is what he calls sacraments, and, yes, the quote does include the role that Wilson asigns to faith in the matter. 

You pick two loose cannons, neither representative of the groups they represent, but both self-promoters, and pull out a couple of quotes. No wonder the radio discussion between these two did not amount to anything.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 9, 2006)

You just gave it away, Mr. Wilder.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> You just gave it away, Mr. Wilder.




I didn't know you could "google" quotes and find the author.


----------



## tewilder (Oct 10, 2006)

The stuff from Horton had already traveled the round of the FV blogs. They like the fact that Horton denies the Westminster position. Well, since he used to be 39 Articles and is now Three Forms of Unity, why would we expect him to take the Westminster view of things, which it seems he has been at pains in his career to stay away from?

It is interesting that the nominalist airplane could not recognize a quote on sacrament and faith from one his authors when he saw it. It is interesting to read the whole original High Zwinglianism post from Wilson, for what it doesn't say. It is full of charicature of what he does not agree with, but it is not possible to make out how he thinks that ritual does what it does. And while he uses the word "sacrament" he is endorsing the chapter "Against Sacraments" from the Leithart book that Wilson published.

Anyway, the whole post is essential Federal Visionism, showing that Wilson really is one of them. It also reflects very well the FV refusal to explain themselves on key points, which they can't because they don't know either.


----------



## nominalist747 (Oct 10, 2006)

Actually, I did know the source of that quote. I was just trying not to give away the ending. I'm not sure what your angle is, Mr. Wilder, but I was posing the question more to the "TR" WSC people around who gun down Wilson. Now, one of those representatives has often said that sure, DW makes orthodox statements, but he also makes unorthodox ones. My point is this: at many points where Wilson is called unorthodox (e.g., his view of the sacraments), he happens to agree exactly with a major WSC thinker. I never said Wilson was not an FVer; instead, I meant to question the WSC judgment that Wilson is unorthodox by comparing him with one of their own highly touted figures (the WSC boys do seem to think that MH represents them), precisely at one of the points where they say Wilson is wrong.

Point of information: Doug Jones is the managing editor of Canon Press, not Doug Wilson. And please don't make the "Doug Wilson rules everything in Moscow" argument--it's almost as silly as the "John Calvin ruled Geneva" claim.

Finally, I suppose that MH's view of the covenant of grace here runs counter to WLC 31, which states that the CoG was made with Christ and in Him, the elect. But the WCF 7.3 states the terms of the CoG in a broader way: "the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe." Here, the CoG is broader than just the elect: it is the offer of the gospel and the requiring of faith, within which context a certain group (those that are ordained) in fact receive the promises. This is further supported by the parallel WCF makes between the administration in the OT and the NT, thus allowing MH to rightly use "not all Israel is Israel" to conclude "not all the (visible) hurch is the (invisible) Church." So, as RS Clark has done in his these on the covenat, you can distiguish the term "CoG" in a broad and a narrow sense. I find nothing objectionable to any of this, and again I find overall agreement between the WSC guys and Wilson.

[Edited on by nominalist747]


----------



## tewilder (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by nominalist747_
> 
> Finally, I suppose that MH's view of the covenant of grace here runs counter to WLC 31, which states that the CoG was made with Christ and in Him, the elect. But the WCF 7.3 states the terms of the CoG in a broader way: "the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe." Here, the CoG is broader than just the elect: it is the offer of the gospel and the requiring of faith, within which context a certain group (those that are ordained) in fact receive the promises. This is further supported by the parallel WCF makes between the administration in the OT and the NT, thus allowing MH to rightly use "not all Israel is Israel" to conclude "not all the (visible) hurch is the (invisible) Church." So, as RS Clark has done in his these on the covenat, you can distiguish the term "CoG" in a broad and a narrow sense. I find nothing objectionable to any of this, and again I find overall agreement between the WSC guys and Wilson.
> 
> [Edited on by nominalist747]




Well, this whole thing is rather tendentious. If, as you think, the covenant of grace is made with everyone to whom the gospel is offered, and then we combine that with a Murray-Van Til "well meant offer" as espoused by the Westminster seminary people, as being made to all men in the sense of desiring their salvation:

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/freeoffer.php

then, who isn't in the Covenant of Grace?

[Edited on 10-10-2006 by tewilder]


----------



## nominalist747 (Oct 10, 2006)

"who isn't in the Covenant of Grace?"

Well, those who don't bind themselves to the forms and conditions of the covenant, it would seem. But you're right that the confessional standards don't seem to address this as clearly and specifically as they could. I don't think that the general idea of covenant is defined in the standards directly; rather it has to be derived from, perhaps, the description of the administration, which means then that those in the CoG are those to whom the word is preached and who participate in the sacraments (WCF 7.6).

I should point out that I wasn't explaining my own view of the CoG, but rather what Westminster appeared to say on the matter, as by your comments I had thought you were Westminster Standards subscriber. I assume by your tone now that you reject the "free offer" position--I'm not interested in debating that particular point. 

What is your alternative view of the CoG (which I suppose is the truly orthodox one)? If we take the WLC 31 reply on its own, then the covenant is entirely invisible, since we don't currently have access to the content of the decree of election. But the marks of the visible church (Word and sacraments) are in fact, according to WCF 7.6, exactly the means of administering the CoG in the NT. That would seem to indicate that that the CoG is the visible church, in one sense (again, see RS Clark's theses on the broad and narrow meaning of CoG).


----------



## tewilder (Oct 10, 2006)

I certainly do not believe that the Covenant of Grace is made with all to which the gospel is offered, that is all men. 

And, of course a covenant is invisible. A covenant is an agreement, not a physical thing like an axe or a cart.

The covenant is administered by God. Any minister who thinks that his work depends on knowing precisely who is in the covenant has a wrong idea of what his work is.


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2006)

I am finding it difficult to follow this discussion. Aren't you using the word covenant in two ways? Sometimes you are speaking of the covenant substantially and other times administrationally. The preaching of the Word is an administration of the covenant of grace, Larger Catechism, answer 35.


----------



## nominalist747 (Oct 10, 2006)

I think you've hit on the problem, Matthew. I've probably equivocated several times myself, thus leading to the confusion, but Wilder seems mostly to be taking potshots at me. Hmm. I should note that this just points up the ambiguity of the term 'covenant,' which can refer either to the agreement itself, or the administration, or perhaps (I think I used it this way at least once), to the community marked off by the administration. I suppose I am considering it primarily as the administration, but maybe that's the point of contention between me and Wilder: I am already distinguishing between covenant and election, while he is not. Have I rightly construed that, Wilder?

I do have to say, though, that the preaching of the Word and the performance (ouch--is that word going to get me into trouble!) of the sacraments are not in fact administered directly by God, but rather through His ministers.

Ah! I've hit it--I was assuming my WSC background: one of Clark's theses on covenant is

"The term covenant of grace can be used broadly and narrowly. When used broadly, it refers to everyone who is baptized into the Christ confessing covenant community. When used narrowly, it refers to those who have received the double benefit of Christ: justification and sanctification. "

Notice, he's using the term CoG as the community, marked off by the administrative elements. I think I was assuming this usage (given the WSC source in the very first quote in the original post) without making that clear. Sorry for wasting time with that.


----------



## tewilder (Oct 11, 2006)

What happened is that you tried to introduce a contradiction into the Westminster Confession by opposing the place where it says that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and those in him and this:



> Finally, I suppose that MH's view of the covenant of grace here runs counter to WLC 31, which states that the CoG was made with Christ and in Him, the elect. But the WCF 7.3 states the terms of the CoG in a broader way: "the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe." Here, the CoG is broader than just the elect: it is the offer of the gospel and the requiring of faith, within which context a certain group (those that are ordained) in fact receive the promises.



where you broaden the Covenant of Grace by saying it is made with all to whom it is offered. Since it is offered to all, this is universalism, unless you want to restrict the gospel offer. 

But of course the WCF does not actually say here that the Covenant of Grace is _made_ with all those to whom it is offered, only that the Covenant is offered, i.e. the gospel is an offer of the covenant. Further, it says that the promise contained in this offer is to _all those that are ordained unto eternal life_, and it is those, it says, who will be enabled to believe, that is to become recipients of the offer. So what this section of the WCF really says is that the Covenant of Grace is made with the elect.


----------



## nominalist747 (Oct 11, 2006)

Hmm...fallacy of attributing motives? I wasn't making any effort to introduce a contradiction, and you have no grounds for claiming to know my intent. I made the mistake of reading my own understanding of the covenant as, in one sense, broader than just the elect (an understanding, as I pointed out, shared by Clark & Horton) into the WCF section on it. But I'm sure you know my own mind better than I.

I see now what the WCF is saying more clearly--thanks for the explanation. No thanks for trying to attribute motives to me, though.

And I still think that it is legitimate to talk about a broader sense of the CoG, even if the WCF doesn't explicitly address that. If I'm unorthodox in this, so are Clark and Horton.


----------



## tewilder (Oct 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by nominalist747_
> Hmm...fallacy of attributing motives? I wasn't making any effort to introduce a contradiction, and you have no grounds for claiming to know my intent.



Except, of course, your own testimony, to wit:



> Finally, I suppose that MH's view of the covenant of grace here runs counter to WLC 31, which states that the CoG was made with Christ and in Him, the elect. But the WCF 7.3 states the terms of the CoG in a broader way:






> I made the mistake of reading my own understanding of the covenant as, in one sense, broader than just the elect (an understanding, as I pointed out, shared by Clark & Horton) into the WCF section on it. But I'm sure you know my own mind better than I.



They are both Three Forms of Unity people. Not required to agree with the Westminster Confession. I don't assume that they do.




> And I still think that it is legitimate to talk about a broader sense of the CoG, even if the WCF doesn't explicitly address that. If I'm unorthodox in this, so are Clark and Horton.



Maybe it is, but don't read it into to the WCF as though it was required, and the people who don't agree were unconfessional.


----------



## nominalist747 (Oct 11, 2006)

All you could infer from my words was that I stated there was a contradiction, not that I "tried to introduce" one. One is what I in fact said (which I'm not denying, and have admitted that I was mistaken), the other is what my motivations were, i.e., that I was making an effort with the goal of bringing in a contradiction. And I never did refer to it as a contradiction: I observed an apparent discrepancy, I was corrected on it, and I did admit that I'd misread the section.

And I never read it into the WCF as required, but only permitted. I trust you read sources you value a little more carefully.


----------

