# One for you, one for me...



## nominalist747 (Oct 23, 2006)

I have something of a meta-question. How do we determine that someone is unorthodox? I've tried to point out very orthodox statements by some of the FV guys, but the response has been "sure they say orthodox things, but they also say unorthodox things." So how do we weigh the orthodox sayings against the unorthodox? How many of the latter does it take to tip the scales? I'll make a brief opening statement:

It seems that the judgment of charity would require us to believe the orthodox statements until and unless there are unorthodox statements that directly contradict the orthodox ones, or can be clearly demonstrated to significantly undermine the substance (not just the wording) of the orthodox sayings. So, for example, if someone declares they believe in justification by faith, but say elsewhere that they believe in justification by works, _and they clearly mean the same thing by 'justification' in both places_ then there's a problem; otherwise, we may want to disagree with their terminology (e.g., if in the second instance they use 'justification' to mean 'vindication,' rather than the specific confessional meaning), but we shouldn't claim they are substantially unorthodox. I guess this is just to say that we should be sure we are arguing over the substance, not just the exactly wording.


----------



## AdamM (Oct 24, 2006)

Isn’t it interesting how in these FV debates the call for charity appears to be directed almost exculsively at the non-FV side? Charity somehow doesn’t include taking into account how what you advocate might be misunderstood or misinterpreted. It all just gets tossed up against the wall and when folks point out that it’s a confusing mess, they’re the problem. I’m sorry, maybe it’s me, but I can’t fathom why a person would want to speak about a future or second justification (instead of public vindication) or to advocate a form of baptismal regeneration, or losable “covenantal” election, losable "covenantal" justification and then to spend years whining and wailing about “poor me, I’m just so misunderstood” – give me a break. If they think the confessional standards are wrong or unhelpful, they need to own up to it or if they've managed to make their orthodox views so muddled and confused that large numbers of folks can't figure out where they stand on key doctrines, then they need to give up teaching, yesterday. Even in the best case FV scenario, does anyone else find it supremely uncharitable to choose wording that’s very likely to be misunderstood, when clearer alternatives exist? 

Again, the way it used to work is that the teacher assumed the primary responsibility for making sure that he communicated clearly and if it didn’t happen, the teacher in charity, assumed the fault was his and corrected it. Instead this new sort of jackboot charity appears to be nothing but a demand that everyone had better accept whatever sort of confusing stuff that I feel like putting out or you’re some sort of narrow minded, uncharitable bigot. Friends, I apologize for the rant, but I'm tired of it.


----------



## nominalist747 (Oct 24, 2006)

To be sure, there are times when I wish some of the FV guys would just capitulate and say: "Okay, we'll say it that way." But it seems to me that they are trying to wrestle with the Biblical language, which is often broader than just our categories of systematic theology. Maybe they have had experience as pastors with people whom read a precise, systematic definition into every occurrance of a word in the Bible, leading to real problems. They are certainly concerned with a "me-and-my-Bible" approach to Christianity that characterizes modern evangelicalism, and with the pursuit of silly novelties (see Wilson's post on an actual product--a Bible that shoots out flames when it opens up so that your congregation will really pay attention to the Word!) that leaves the rich gifts of the sacraments in the basement closet as "too old-fashioned," etc. They are also concerned about the need for the true fruits of faith and a recognition that "once saved, always saved--'cause it's by grace, dude" is often simply a cover for worldiness. I've seen all of these things even in reformed churches, so perhaps I sympathize with them in that way.

My frustration is not with their unconventional terminology, but rather with the response that instead of asking: "that sounds odd--what do you mean by that?" just condemns them to hell at the very beginning of the conversation or, when they are asked to clarify and wind up saying very orthodox things, responds not with: "ah, I'm glad you cleared that up, but are you sure that's the best way to say it" but with "you're just saying that, 'cause I know you're a heretic." Quite frankly, the latter response that appears far more common than the former. I was at WSC when the RPCUS issued their broad condemnation in a totally inappropriate manner, and there were some resounding email cheers from fellow students. So for some, the controversy was a foregone conclusion, and all of the "debate" has just been demonstrating the _a priori_.


----------



## turmeric (Oct 24, 2006)

What AdamM said.


----------



## Magma2 (Oct 26, 2006)

nominalist747 said:


> It seems that the judgment of charity would require us to believe the orthodox statements until and unless there are unorthodox statements that directly contradict the orthodox ones, or can be clearly demonstrated to significantly undermine the substance (not just the wording) of the orthodox sayings. So, for example, if someone declares they believe in justification by faith, but say elsewhere that they believe in justification by works, _and they clearly mean the same thing by 'justification' in both places_ then there's a problem; otherwise, we may want to disagree with their terminology (e.g., if in the second instance they use 'justification' to mean 'vindication,' rather than the specific confessional meaning), but we shouldn't claim they are substantially unorthodox.



Roman Catholics believe in justification by faith too. I sat right next to Steve Wilkins and overheard him telling a student at a “Worldview” conference in Hampton, VA that he doesn’t know what all the fuss is about, after all he said he believes in justification by faith. Well, the problem is not that these men believe in justification by faith, but rather it’s they don’t believe in justification by faith alone.


----------



## Magma2 (Oct 26, 2006)

> They are also concerned about the need for the true fruits of faith and a recognition that "once saved, always saved--'cause it's by grace, dude" is often simply a cover for worldiness. I've seen all of these things even in reformed churches, so perhaps I sympathize with them in that way.



If wordliness was really Wilson’s & Co.’s concern then they should have been addressing that issue. But once saved, always saved “cause it’s by grace, dude” is true. In Wilson’s anti-Christian theology Christian’s can be lost. The good news of salvation by belief of the Gospel alone is replaced by the unspecified duties of "covenantal faithfulness" in order to keep the grace and salvation conferred by one's baptism. After all, argues Wilson, returning to his addled and well-worn analogy, "No one assumes that every husband will automatically have a successful marriage. Nor should we assume that every Christian will go to Heaven." In Wilson's theology some Christians will go to Hell. 



> My frustration is not with their unconventional terminology, but rather with the response that instead of asking: "that sounds odd--what do you mean by that?" just condemns them to hell at the very beginning of the conversation or, when they are asked to clarify and wind up saying very orthodox things, responds not with: "ah, I'm glad you cleared that up, but are you sure that's the best way to say it" but with "you're just saying that, 'cause I know you're a heretic." Quite frankly, the latter response that appears far more common than the former. I was at WSC when the RPCUS issued their broad condemnation in a totally inappropriate manner, and there were some resounding email cheers from fellow students. So for some, the controversy was a foregone conclusion, and all of the "debate" has just been demonstrating the a priori.



You make it sound as if what these men believe, teach and promote is some sophisticated theological esoterica bathed in scholarly nuance that few can grasp and even fewer have given a fair shake. These men have been holding conferences (transcripts and audio all available for purchase), writing books, engaging in debate, teaching seminary courses, running seminaries, preaching in the pulpits, and even occasionally going on trial (OK, maybe just one where the few Christian men left had the courage to call at least one of these men to account), so I don’t think there is – nor can there be at this point – any misunderstanding of exactly what these advocates of the so-called “Federal Vision” or the Gaffinian NPP are teaching. 

Does that mean that most pew-ons are up to speed on what is going on in their churches? Certainly not. I can tell you, at least from my experience locally, many seem to understand more than their own pastors and they are thankfully fleeing these churches. But for any RE or TE to be behind the curve on this issue at this point in time is simply without excuse and is, in my view, a complete disservice to Christ and His sheep whom they’ve sworn to protect.


----------



## Civbert (Oct 26, 2006)

nominalist747 said:


> I have something of a meta-question. How do we determine that someone is unorthodox?


 They are unorthodox if their teachings are not orthodox. Nothing more. 




nominalist747 said:


> I've tried to point out very orthodox statements by some of the FV guys, but the response has been "sure they say orthodox things, but they also say unorthodox things." So how do we weigh the orthodox sayings against the unorthodox? How many of the latter does it take to tip the scales?



It's not a matter of weighing statements, but looking at all the statements together to understand:

The positions they are taking
The implications of their statements

It's not sufficient to just look at single statements. We need to compare different statements and see how they work together. Not just to see if they are self-contradictory - but also to see how they are using terms (sometimes differently than the norm), and also to determine the logical implications of their statements.




nominalist747 said:


> It seems that the judgment of charity would require us to believe the orthodox statements until and unless there are unorthodox statements that directly contradict the orthodox ones, or can be clearly demonstrated to significantly undermine the substance (not just the wording) of the orthodox sayings.


 That's exactly what the opponents of FV are doing. They start by give them the benefit of the doubt. 



nominalist747 said:


> So, for example, if someone declares they believe in justification by faith, but say elsewhere that they believe in justification by works, _and they clearly mean the same thing by 'justification' in both places_ then there's a problem;...


 No doubt.



nominalist747 said:


> ...otherwise, we may want to disagree with their terminology (e.g., if in the second instance they use 'justification' to mean 'vindication,' rather than the specific confessional meaning), but we shouldn't claim they are substantially unorthodox.


 Of course not. We also don't claim that James was being unorthodox for seeming to contradict Paul. But neither Paul nor James equivocated with the terms they were using. One may indeed use the same term in different ways - as long as that is clear - and they don't use the same term in different ways as part of a single chain of argument.



nominalist747 said:


> I guess this is just to say that we should be sure we are arguing over the substance, not just the exactly wording.


 Opponents of FV usually start off their opposition (historically) by assuming their opponents did not mean what they appeared to mean. I don't see opponents of FV as quick to judge. More then likely, they have listen carefully and studied the FV position until it is clear that there is no other conclusion they can reach other than the FV is unorthodox, if not heretical. 

It's not unusual for FV people to sound orthodox with one statement and unorthodox with another. Many quotes I've seen given by FV supporters are very orthodox - taken by themselves. It's only when you've considered all there statements together, and considered the implications, that one can see how unorthodox they really are. 

I appreciate your sentiments. But I think they are unfounded. I think they come from reading sound-bites from FV opponents. You have to realize that most of what you are reading is in context of a long and painful debate. A post that seems to simply posit that FV'ers are heterodox or even heretical is usually the product of a history of hearing the FV'ers and their statements and considering them carefully. Don't assume anyone uses terms like heretical lightly. 

Try giving some FV opponents the benefit of the doubt too.


----------



## Civbert (Oct 26, 2006)

nominalist747 said:


> To be sure, there are times when I wish some of the FV guys would just capitulate and say: "Okay, we'll say it that way." But it seems to me that they are trying to wrestle with the Biblical language, which is often broader than just our categories of systematic theology.


 This brings up an interesting issue I've been wondering about. Why does everyone assume we need to use "biblical" language? If that's the case, shouldn't we be speaking Hebrew and Greek? And certainly the terms used in Scripture are often broader than the same terms used in systematic theology. Isn't that the point of systematic theology? To better understand the content of scripture by systematizing the concepts and ideas in clear univocal propositions? Not to add or subtract from scripture, but to better understand it. So, for instance, you would not use "know" in systematic theology in all the ways the Old Testament does because the meaning is often broader than the English implies. 

The reason the FV guys don't want to "say it that way" is because they seem to have problems with "that way" of saying it. Clearly "that way" (the orthodox way) is not working for them and they want to get away from it. Question is, where are they going? Maybe Rome?!?


----------



## tewilder (Oct 26, 2006)

Civbert said:


> This brings up an interesting issue I've been wondering about. Why does everyone assume we need to use "biblical" language? If that's the case, shouldn't we be speaking Hebrew and Greek? And certainly the terms used in Scripture are often broader than the same terms used in systematic theology. Isn't that the point of systematic theology? To better understand the content of scripture by systematizing the concepts and ideas in clear univocal propositions? Not to add or subtract from scripture, but to better understand it. So, for instance, you would not use "know" in systematic theology in all the ways the Old Testament does because the meaning is often broader than the English implies.



There are two levels to the language thing.

One is a mentality that people pick up in seminary when they are intitiated into the Biblical theology games. This sees the language of a era as a sort of limiting framework which God has to acomodate in revelation. 

The second, or James Jordan level, is that Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew before the Fall, and that we have to learn Hebrew to get the God-given terminology and concepts of theology and worship.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 26, 2006)

nominalist747 said:


> I was at WSC when the RPCUS issued their broad condemnation in a totally inappropriate manner, and there were some resounding email cheers from fellow students.



Klineans were praising theonomists? Talk about ecumenicity!


----------



## nominalist747 (Oct 26, 2006)

*A Miscellany of responses*

To Mr. Coletti:

1. With all due respect, I have seen very little fair-mindedness in many of the critics of the FV. I was in communication with WSC circles when the RPCUS issued their anathema of the "Auburn Avenue Four," without providing any grounds for doing so. I heard no responses of: "Now wait a minute, where's the evidence for this charge?" Instead, what I heard was: "See, we knew they were heretics!" I'm not at all clear how this constitutes giving the benefit of the doubt. I also know for a fact that at least one FVer, i.e., Wilson, was openly badmouthed by WSC students, and at least one WSC prof referred to him as a "wacko" and implied that he was not orthodox, and this was all before May 2002, _before_ the controversy really got going (the initial Auburn Ave. conference was in Jan. 2002, with the RPCUS heresy announcement coming in June 2002). Thus, your claims that FV critics begin by assuming the best, not being quick to judge, or coming to their conclusions after a painful process do not find support in what I have seen. The reason I don't seem to give the FV opponents the benefit of the doubt is that I know that many of them began with a dislike for a certain person (most of them without having ever really read his work) before this particular issue arose. 

2. I understand and concur with the principle of looking broadly at someone's views and examining the implications of their teaching to determine their orthodoxy. To look at their overall teaching, however, means to include the orthodox statements, which I have seen people dismiss as "slipperiness." I have also seen people simply attibute positions to FV figures without acknowledging any qualifications (it has been done in this very thread: see # 2 below). 

3. I am a little baffled by you questioning whether we should use biblical language. It is the Word of God that is living and powerful, not our systematic summaries thereof. Furthermore, as I suggested in my original post, if someone takes the systematic definition of a term, and reads it into every occurrance of the biblical one, that is going to give rise to serious misunderstandings. Also, is our systematic theology perfect yet? Does it need improvement or development in any respect? If it does, then shouldn't it be interaction with the biblical language that gives rise to developments in systematics? If it doesn't, then we're in good shape: it turns out that we, not Rome, have created the infallible declaration of the faith.

To Mr. Gerety:

1. I'm unclear how simply stating that one should first ask clarifying questions about an unconventional doctrinal expression implies that the FV teaching is esoteric and inaccessible. I have found _certain_ (I can't claim exhaustive familiarity with all of them) proponents very clear, but I have oddly enough found those clear _and orthodox_ (again, there may be those who are not so, but those whom I have read I do not find heretical). 

2. You offer a good example of this. Wilson is extremely clear about what he means when he says that some Christians still go to hell: he specifically qualifies the different senses in which the term can be used (_'Reformed'_, pp. 17ff.). Yet you ignore his straightforward discussion of the different senses of the term and baldly assert that he says Christians can be lost. Here, your accusation is what is obscuring the issue, not what he teaches. He is very clear, and he is orthodox on the issue of the need for true heart conversion. He is also very clear on the nature of faith: it is trust in Christ, not our own faithfulness, and admits no element of works (_'Reformed'_, p. 45, 186; 'Notes on Westminster,'--a blog series--chapters 11, 14, and 16; myriad sermons and exhortations). If your criticism is representative, my hesitation to simply roll over and believe the FV critics is well-grounded: by my reading, you clearly misrepresent him and then claim his teaching is clearly unorthodox.

3. As to laypersons understanding this better than their pastors, I have not seen that to be the case, although I will admit my experience is limited. In our own church, two families have left over this issue. I must say, however, as a WSC graduate well-versed in (and in agreement with) the confessional tradition of the Reformed faith, they were simply wrong. Our pastor does not by any means preach, teach, or even hold to the distinctives of Sheperd, for example, and in fact explicitly rejects many of them in his teaching and conversation (he doesn't actively preach against them by name, because he does not want his proclamation of the word to be dictated by a particular controversy, and because his practice is to exegetically preach through a book of Scripture). So, families leave our church, having demanded the session "repent" (i.e., accused them of sin), without _any_ actual basis. There's nothing I can point to, with my WSC training (a far cry from FV-land!), and say even: this is _unconventional_, yet these families make accusations of propagating heresy.


----------



## Civbert (Oct 26, 2006)

nominalist747 said:


> 1. With all due respect, I have seen very little fair-mindedness in many of the critics of the FV. I was in communication with WSC circles when the RPCUS issued their anathema of the "Auburn Avenue Four," without providing any grounds for doing so.


 They gave plenty of grounds. And are you in a place to judge the hearts of the critics. Maybe you've know a couple personally, but how well do you know the rest. Are you in any position to judge their motives?



nominalist747 said:


> I heard no responses of: "Now wait a minute, where's the evidence for this charge?" Instead, what I heard was: "See, we knew they were heretics!"


 I think a citation is called for since you have given a "quotation". Personally, I've read plenty of evidence, including the statements of FV proponents themselves. 



nominalist747 said:


> I'm not at all clear how this constitutes giving the benefit of the doubt. I also know for a fact that at least one FVer, i.e., Wilson, was openly badmouthed by WSC students, and at least one WSC prof referred to him as a "wacko" and implied that he was not orthodox, and this was all before May 2002, _before_ the controversy really got going (the initial Auburn Ave. conference was in Jan. 2002, with the RPCUS heresy announcement coming in June 2002).


This did not start with in Jan. 2002. The history of this goes much further back. Maybe your awareness of the issue started in May, but the critics of FV began many years earlier. The AA conference was just the straw that broke the camels back. And it is not wise to judge the whole of the FV critics by your personal experience with a handful. 




nominalist747 said:


> Thus, your claims that FV critics begin by assuming the best, not being quick to judge, or coming to their conclusions after a painful process do not find support in what I have seen.


 That is because you are using your personal experience to judge the the rest. 



nominalist747 said:


> The reason I don't seem to give the FV opponents the benefit of the doubt is that I know that many of them began with a dislike for a certain person (most of them without having ever really read his work) before this particular issue arose.


 Now that really is a judgment you can not make. You _know _that many of them began with a personal dislike of a certain person? You really think this is about liking or disliking anyone. Some of FV opponents personally like FV proponents. But this is about doctrine, not personalities. Frankly, I'm sure Wilson and others are very nice guys. It's their doctrine I'm concerned about. And if I couldn't stand to look at them, you are in no position to assume that is what drives my criticisms. 



nominalist747 said:


> 2. I understand and concur with the principle of looking broadly at someone's views and examining the implications of their teaching to determine their orthodoxy. To look at their overall teaching, however, means to include the orthodox statements, which I have seen people dismiss as "slipperiness."


 Perhaps a more charitable response would be that they don't find the orthodox statement in themselves convincing - given the heterodox statements that have also been made.

No one is in a position to judge the motives and hearts of the people involved in these issues. It's a distraction from the real issues of importance. How about we stop accusing our opponents of being mean and nasty and start considering the arguments that are being made. Stick to the doctrine.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 26, 2006)

Well, now, mentioning Wilson's blog series on Westminster, there was this interesting tidbit from the theological Voldemort:



> Repentance is necessary to salvation but must never be thought of as the cause of it. Apples are necessary to apple trees, but apples never caused anything to become an apple tree. No man was ever saved apart from repentance, but repentance is not the reason God saves him _it is one of the instruments of salvation_. The so-called "Lordship" controversy in fundamentalist circles is a result of not understanding this truth. If a man must repent in order to be saved, and if repentance is not an evangelical gift, then it does follow that to demand repentance is to demand salvation by works. But the problem is in the premises. Repentance is a gift of God.



Emphasis added. What do people think of that statement?


----------



## nominalist747 (Oct 26, 2006)

Mr. Coletti,

I was merely giving counterexamples to your blanket statement that FV critics begin by giving the FV the benefit of the doubt. I nowhere applied my experiences to the entirety of FV critics; in fact, I repeatedly qualified my statement by saying "many" instead of "all," etc. I am sure that there are many FV critics who are well-intentioned and began the debate with an open mind. I'm just not sure that I've really met very many of them. Could we split the difference? Some addressed the questions with an open mind, others did not. Given that, I do prefer to look at the doctrines involved. 

I apologize for the misleading quotation marks. Those statements were meant to characterize the responses, not quote them directly.

Perhaps I was unclear: there were no grounds given for the charges of denying JBFA in the RPCUS statement. That denial was the ground for the anathema, but no quotations of any of the men named were provided, so the grounds for that particular charge were absent.

I would be happy to simply deal with the doctrinal questions. The difficulty is that when I have made that attempt and point out staunchly orthodox statements and tendencies in some FV thinkers, the response is: "Sure they sound orthodox, but they're not." (this is a characterizing quote, not a direct one) So this thread was meant to inquire into the standard of proof being used, given my frustration with such responses. You then instructed me to give the critics the benefit of the doubt, and I simply explained why I was not automatically inclined to do so. I apologize for such personalism, or if I appeared to be reading the hearts of all FV critics. Again, I was simply offering counterexamples to the blanket claim that the critics began with a judgment of charity.

Have you similarly chided FV critics who impute motives? I have certainly read many critical statements that explain what the FV folks are trying to do, or what they intend, which sound like a discussion of motives to me.

I suppose the question is this: do the unorthodox statements undermine the orthodox ones, or do the orthodox ones contextualize the unorthodox? That is, when we find questionable statements, do we then accept the author's affirmation of traditional doctrine as qualifying and ameliorating the questionable ones? Or, when we encounter orthodox ones, do we assert that he can't really mean that, because of the unorthodox ones? I find myself inclined toward the former approach (and not just with FVers), whereas most of the critics I have spoken to insist on the latter.


----------



## nominalist747 (Oct 26, 2006)

*Repentance*

I'm not sure why that statement by his dark lordship would cause us to raise our eyebrows.


"It is impossible to disentangle faith and repentance. Saving faith is permeated with repentance and repentance is permeated with faith."
-John Murray


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 26, 2006)

py3ak said:


> Well, now, mentioning Wilson's blog series on Westminster, there was this interesting tidbit from the theological Voldemort:



I wonder how many on this board caught that reference? LOL


----------



## Magma2 (Oct 26, 2006)

> 1. I'm unclear how simply stating that one should first ask clarifying questions about an unconventional doctrinal expression implies that the FV teaching is esoteric and inaccessible.



Of course the doctrine of salvation by faith and works is not esoteric, inaccessible or even unconventional, so what's there to clarify? Millions of Romanists, not to mention members of Wilson and Co.'s anti-christian and false covenant, believe the same. I said; “You make it sound as if what these men believe, teach and promote is some sophisticated theological esoterica bathed in scholarly nuance that few can grasp and even fewer have given a fair shake.” Asking “clarifying question” make it sound like the advocates and proponents of Neolegalism haven’t been clear. I think they have been painfully clear in what they believe in their printed and spoken material. This ain't rocket science.  



> I have found certain (I can't claim exhaustive familiarity with all of them) proponents very clear, but I have oddly enough found those clear and orthodox (again, there may be those who are not so, but those whom I have read I do not find heretical).



Certainly they claim to be orthodox. After all, Wilson drapes himself in the WCF in his diatribe against the Reformed faith, _Reformed is Not Enough_, and claims to be the TR of TRs. Perhaps the problem lies with your understanding of orthodoxy? This would explain why you don’t find anything heretical in Wilson's thought. 



> 2. You offer a good example of this. Wilson is extremely clear about what he means when he says that some Christians still go to hell: he specifically qualifies the different senses in which the term can be used ('Reformed', pp. 17ff.). Yet you ignore his straightforward discussion of the different senses of the term and baldly assert that he says Christians can be lost.



Actually I don’t think I've ignored a thing in Wilson and it’s my view that you have failed to read him in context and are all too eager to accept his sleight of hand. You might recall that Wilson quotes Randy Booth very favorably in a number of places, including the following: "Only faithful covenant membership (i.e., those full of faith in the Savior), receive the covenant blessings,_ including the blessings of imputed righteousness"_ (175, emphasis added). That sentence deserves to be read again. The imputation of Christ's righteousness is _the result of being a faithful covenant member._ No equivocation at all. Wilson immediately adds, "This is fundamental to the central point of this book. Election is one thing and covenant membership is another." Maybe you missed that and just need to read his book again?

For Wilson it is the conditions of salvation that God sets at baptism that become the dividing line between salvation and damnation: "Those who obligate themselves under the terms of the covenant law to live by faith but then defiantly refuse to believe are cut away" (134). In Wilson's scheme, "breaking covenant occurs because of unbelief, lack of faith, and because of lack of good works" (134), and fulfilling the conditions of the covenant occurs by faith and good works. Wilson rejects the historic Reformed and Biblical view of the Covenant of Grace in which Christ is the Mediator of the covenant and the Savior of his people. The imputation of Christ's righteousness is not contingent upon our "faithful covenant membership," but solely upon Christ's obedience to the will of the Father. 

Wilson’s view is plainly inconsistent with the nature of the Gospel. The method of salvation presented in the Gospel is no compromise of principle, no lowering of terms. Christ fulfills the old legal covenant absolutely. Along with the rest of the Gospel, Wilson has forgotten Paul's statement in Romans 4:4-5: "Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness...." Notice it is not by our faithfulness, our working, that we are reckoned as righteous. God justifies the ungodly, "who does not work." Moreover, Romans 10:3-4 says, apropos Wilson's theology, "For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. _For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."_ 




> Here, your accusation is what is obscuring the issue, not what he teaches.




LOL Very funny.  



> He is very clear, and he is orthodox on the issue of the need for true heart conversion. He is also very clear on the nature of faith: it is trust in Christ, not our own faithfulness, and admits no element of works ('Reformed', p. 45, 186; 'Notes on Westminster,'--a blog series--chapters 11, 14, and 16; myriad sermons and exhortations). If your criticism is representative, my hesitation to simply roll over and believe the FV critics is well-grounded: by my reading, you clearly misrepresent him and then claim his teaching is clearly unorthodox.



Orthodoxy by what standard? Certainly not in accordance with Scripture, much less the WCF. Wilson is a con artist and he either has you duped or you’re just another one of his shills (I’m hoping it’s the former and not the latter). For Wilson covenantal faithfulness, not Jesus’ but ours, is the sine qua non of “final” justification. He explains that "faith in the biblical sense is inseparable from faithfulness.... But when we have faith that works its way out in love, which is the only thing that genuine faith can do, _then the condition that God has set for the fulfillment of His promise has been met_" (186-187, emphasis added). The ones who, through their faithfulness, "meet the condition that God has set for the fulfilment of His promise," become sheep. In the objective covenant in which the sinner meets conditions and fulfills his covenantal obligations, thus qualifying himself for the salvation God has promised, Wilson confuses works with sanctification, and both with justification. Wilson's conditional objective covenant is an outright denial of the Covenant of Grace and the doctrine of justification by faith alone: Those whom God effectually called he also freely justified; _not by infusing righteousness into them_, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous: _not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them_, but for Christ's sake alone: _not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience, to them as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith_: which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God [WCF, 11:1].

Wilson’s way of salvation is qualitatively different, and, on this score you’re right, he is very clear. 





> 3. As to laypersons understanding this better than their pastors, I have not seen that to be the case, although I will admit my experience is limited.



Maybe you should come to VA and spend a Lord’s Day with me and talk with the dozen or more recent attendees and members of my church who have recently fled a local PCA church whose pastors have embraced much of Wilson’s doctrines. Or try our sister church who has also welcomed a similar number fleeing from the same tomb that many thought was, at one time, a church. 



> In our own church, two families have left over this issue.



Is this something you lament? It seems to me to be the biblical thing to do:

14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
17 "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you.

Praise God that two families will be saved in spite of the best efforts of some. 



> as a WSC graduate well-versed in (and in agreement with) the confessional tradition of the Reformed faith, they were simply wrong. Our pastor does not by any means preach, teach, or even hold to the distinctives of Sheperd, for example, and in fact explicitly rejects many of them in his teaching and conversation (he doesn't actively preach against them by name, because he does not want his proclamation of the word to be dictated by a particular controversy, and because his practice is to exegetically preach through a book of Scripture).



Maybe their problem is with the OPC’s failure to deal with this cancer, particularly in its failed attempts to discipline Shepherd, Kinnaird and others under the care of the OPC. For what it's worth I would leave too and I don’t for a minute believe the PCA has performed much better in this regard. We seem too content to ignore brazen heretics like Leithart, Wilkins and other, so the PCA has it’s own problems. Sometimes seperating is the biblical thing to do. 



> families leave our church, having demanded the session "repent" (i.e., accused them of sin), without any actual basis. There's nothing I can point to, with my WSC training (a far cry from FV-land!), and say even: this is unconventional, yet these families make accusations of propagating heresy.



Well, I wouldn’t want to question your WSC training, but it seems to me that anyone who would consider Wilson to be the paragon of Reformed orthodoxy is in no position to judge these families.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 26, 2006)

Perhaps you or JWD will know this, Jacob. Does the Dark Lord draw on Shepherd (Salazar?) to any degree? Because that statement sort of reminded me of the 34 Theses, I think it was. 
And I was a bit surprised that I hadn't seen any one mention it yet.


----------



## nominalist747 (Oct 30, 2006)

Mr. Gerety,

I am tempted not to reply, since it's pretty clear that any defense I make of Wilson will simply be taken as evidence that I am either a dupe or a shill--and give you great opportunity to demonstrate your _outstanding_ charity in considering me to be the former. However, I will take the bait, as unfortunate as that might be for us all.

1. None of my former professors at WSC or my previous or current pastors in Reformed churches has seen fit to question my orthodoxy, but I'm sure you know far better than they.

2. One the issue of faithfulness: you say that you have missed nothing, but you might wish to look at the following:

A. p. 96: "Objectively, both the true and the false son are brought into the same relation. _But because one of them is elect and the other is not_, the former is faithful and the latter is faithless." (empahsis added) p. 137, quoting Seriah: "The means by which men apostasize from the covenant is unfaithfulness. The _means_ by which men persevere in the covenant is faithfulness." (emphasis added) So, the fundamental reason why someone if faithful or not is because of election, which is not based on any of our works (p. 28 the reasons for election "do _not_ include foresight of our faith, good works, stamina in either, good looks, or anything else that might be found in the creature...", emphasis in original), and faithfulness (or lack thereof) is the _means _by which this unconditional election is worked out in history. p. 29: "...God does not just predestine the end...He also predestined the varied preconditions and means which were necessary to bring Smith to the point of salvation. These preconditions included being fallen in Adam, redeemed by Christ, and called and kept by the Holy Spirit. The elect have all the preconditions preordained for the them, and those who are not elect do not participate in the foreordained salvific preconditions." This is all entirely consistent with WCF 16.2, which indicates that, according to the commentary by A.A. Hodge, good works "are necessary to the attainment of salvation, not in any sense as a prerequisite to justification, nor in any stage of the believer's progress meriting the divine favour, but as essential elements of that salvation, the consubstantial fruits and means of sanctification and glorification." (http://www.rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcfaah16.htm; see also his comments to WCF 3.2 on God ordaining the means) 
To continue, WCF 7.3 states that in the covenant of grace faith is required, which Hodge explains as follows: "Christ at once purchases salvation for us, and applies salvation to us; commands us to do, and works in us to obey; offers us grace and eternal life _on conditions_, and _gives us the conditions_ and the grace and the eternal life...Viewed in relation to salvation, [faith and repentance] are indices of its commencement and _conditions __sine qua non_ of its completion." (emphasis added) So, our receiving "life and salvation" from Christ (WCF 7.3) does in fact have conditions, and so it is contingent upon our true faith (which is by definition a faith that works, WCF 14.2 with 16.1) but God decrees that the elect will in fact fulfill those conditions (WCF 3.6). Once again, given the context of pp. 28-29 on election (see above), Wilson is in line with the WCF (unless Hodge is a heretic, too)--there are conditions, seen from our perspective, which are fully granted to us, when seen from God's eternal decrees (which we don't know, Deut. 29:29).

B. Your comments on pp. 186-187 are likewise dealt with by the above discussion, and you should note what Wilson says on p. 45, which mirrors very closely the very words you italicize in WCF 11:1: "We are justified for Christ's sake only. God does not justify us for anything done by us, and, far more important, for anything done in us (even by HIm). Nor does God justify us because of our faith--rather He justifies us because of Christ's obedience and work, and this is appropriated by us through faith." If you are offering the later comments as evidence of his supposed trickery, then you should again refer to the comments above. Moreover, you should read the context more carefully: on pp. 186-187, the promises he is talking about are not the salvific promises to the individual believer, but rather the promises of godly children. And he once again reiterates here that the results fundamentally come from God, not on the basis of our works: "No human parent has met all the conditions of works that would ensure godly offspring." 

There you go. As to whether I've demonstrated my own poor understanding of orthodoxy and Wilson's continued arch-heresy or your failure to read the confession and Wilson thoroughly, I leave that question up to open-minded readers, if there are any here.


----------



## Magma2 (Oct 31, 2006)

> 1. None of my former professors at WSC or my previous or current pastors in Reformed churches has seen fit to question my orthodoxy, but I'm sure you know far better than they.



There you go again wearing your WSC credentials like a badge. I’m just not sure what it’s supposed to mean? Does it get you special treatment at restaurants? Better seats at the ballfield? 

What I question is your defense of Wilson. It seems in this regard your WSC badge is of no help whatsoever.



> 2. One the issue of faithfulness: you say that you have missed nothing, but you might wish to look at the following:
> 
> A. p. 96: "Objectively, both the true and the false son are brought into the same relation. But because one of them is elect and the other is not, the former is faithful and the latter is faithless." (empahsis added) p. 137 . . . Wilson is in line with the WCF (unless Hodge is a heretic, too)--there are conditions, seen from our perspective, which are fully granted to us, when seen from God's eternal decrees (which we don't know, Deut. 29:29).



Was this supposed to be more evidence of the uselessness of your WSC credentials? Objectively, a false son, like a nominal Christian (a category Wilson denies per his sensate anti-Christian philosophy), is neither a son nor a Christian. The problem for Wilson is because he can’t see who is a son and who isn’t with the eyes in his noggin’ he just assumes both are. Anything else is all Greek to him.  

Wilson asserts that all baptized persons without exception are properly called Christians, and that this is the only way the Bible uses the word "Christian." Wilson states; “[T]here is no such thing as a merely nominal Christian any more than we can find a man who is a nominal husband. There are many faithless husbands, but if a man is a husband at all, then he is as much a husband as a faithful one. He is a covenant breaker, but this is not the same as saying that he has no covenant to break. In the same way, there are multitudes of faithless Christians, who do not believe what God said at their baptism [96].”

The phrase "faithless Christian" is a contradiction in terms, and a "nominal Christian" is a person who acts like, but is not, a Christian -- the sort of hypocritical church member James discusses in James 2. Similarly, a "nominal husband" (another of Wilson's phrases) is a man who acts like, but is not, a husband -- he is a fornicator. He acts in some respects -- but not the defining respect -- as though he were a husband, but the law does not support his claim and condemns his action. Wilson's rejection of the notion of the church invisible, which he ridicules as the "ethereal church" (21), puts him at odds with the very Confession he claims to defend: "The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that fills all in all" (WCF 20.5). It is this relationship between the invisible church and individual election that Wilson seeks to sever. He does this by denying the first, the invisible church, and relegating the second, election, to an unknowable realm. The covenant, he asserts, is not with the elect, but with the baptized. Wilson writes: "A true son is brought into the covenant and is nourished there. A false son is brought into the covenant and by his unbelief incurs the chastisements of that covenant. Objectively both the true and false sons are brought into the same relation.... Objectively, baptism makes me a member of Christ's body...." (96). Notice again, something I guess you missed the first read through, both true and false sons have the "same relation" to Christ. This too is false. Given that WSC thing you keep mentioning, you should have known this. Evidently it didn’t even raise a flag.



> As to whether I've demonstrated my own poor understanding of orthodoxy and Wilson's continued arch-heresy or your failure to read the confession and Wilson thoroughly, I leave that question up to open-minded readers, if there are any here.



Is this how the game is played Mr. Smith? Anyone who doesn’t agree with you that Wilson is as theologically pure as the driven snow is somehow less than open minded and consistently confessional. Hogwash.


----------

