# Norman Shepherd on the OPC report.



## johnny_redeemed (Sep 12, 2006)

Has anyone read this? 
http://www.upsaid.com/files/scarecrow/Comments_OPC_Justification_Report_4.pdf

If so, what did you think? Are there any responses to it? Where is he off on this particular issue? Any help would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## tewilder (Sep 13, 2006)

Right away in the first paragraph Shepherd says: 

"(Here the Report means to say more accurately, 'the necessity of the <i>imputation</i> of Christ's active obdience' as the meritorious ground for our justification and salvation. No one questions that his active obedience is necessary for our salvation.)"

But there can't be an imputation of active obedience if there is no active obedience. And active obedience is obedience to the Covenant of Works. In the very next paragraph Shepherd goes on the attack against the Covenant of Works, so it is clear that he does not believe in active obedience, let alone its imputation, in the sense that the Committee means. 

Shepherd is playing rhetorical games. This is highly entertaining for his groupies, but who else cares anymore now that Shepherd has advised the OPC to dump the Westminster Confession?


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> Shepherd is playing rhetorical games. This is highly entertaining for his groupies, but who else cares anymore now that Shepherd has advised the OPC to dump the Westminster Confession?



Where did Shepherd say this?


----------



## tewilder (Sep 13, 2006)

<a href = "http://www.federal-vision.com/pdf/shepherd3.pdf">http://www.federal-vision.com/pdf/shepherd3.pdf</a>

Especially page 4.

<blockquote>
'My suggestion to the OPC would be to substitute the Heidelberg Catechism for the Westminster Confession. But since I don´t see that happening any time soon, my second suggestion would be to re-word the Westminster Confession, 7/2, this way: "The first covenant made with man was a gracious covenant wherein life was promised to Adam and in him to his posterity as a gift to be received by a living, active, and obedient faith." This probably won´t
happen, either; but it is worth serious consideration.'</blockquote>


----------



## turmeric (Sep 13, 2006)

He wouldn't like the implications of the Heidelberg Catechism either.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> He wouldn't like the implications of the Heidelberg Catechism either.




Why not?.... 

Does anyone one to interact with the heart of Shepherd's argument...i.e. the ground of our Justification is not the active obedience of Christ, but rather his passive obedience (this death and resurrection)?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 13, 2006)

Meg's exactly right.

We have a chapter devoted to re-stating and defending the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in R. Scott Clark, ed., _Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry_ (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2007) to be releaed, Dv on 5 Jan. 

There are responses to NS at  here.

rsc




> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by turmeric_
> ...


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Meg's exactly right.
> 
> We have a chapter devoted to re-stating and defending the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in R. Scott Clark, ed., _Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry_ (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2007) to be releaed, Dv on 5 Jan.
> ...



Thank you for the helpful links... 

Are there any critiques of the FV that a FVer has said represents their view(s) well?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 13, 2006)

This is a serious problem. They talk/write as if no one but they are smart enough to understand the gnostic mysteries of the FV/NPP.

It's a problem for serious dialogue. I've been working on this stuff since well before it was known as "the FV" (their self-designation which they now say, "doesn't exist"!) and it's been made considerably more difficult by their own obtuseness and their own refusal or inability to correlate their views to the Reformed tradition and by their unwillingness to say, "We disagree with the Reformed on this point..."

So, every time one of us offers a criticism, one of them squeals that they've been treated unfairly or misrepresented! What's a critic to do? 

So, you have to read their stuff and read our stuff (including real books and articles and not just web stuff) to see if you think that the critics are telling the truth. I don't think you can trust them to say, "Oh this fellow understands us..." because rhetorically, they've never conceded that to ANY critic, not to Venema, Godfrey, Horton, Waters, Duncan, Clark, VanDrunen, et al. None of these fellow, not one of them, according to the FV, understands them. These fellows all hold earned PhD's and hold or have held academic positions. They've demonstrated an ability to read multiple languages and to analyze complex texts and arguments, but none of them can read a series of mostly popular articles and books by mostly amateur theologians and understand them. 

Hmmm. It makes one wonder doesn't it? It's possible that these critics are actually all incompetent, but what is the statistical likelihood of that? The faculties of four seminaries (WSC, MARS, Greenville, Knox) have all repudiated the FV/NPP doctrines. So all these faculties are confused? They're all wrong? Sure it's possible, but is it likely? If they're all wrong, then whom can we trust to REALLY tell us the truth about the FV/NPP?

Maybe only the FV boys can do it? 

Read the history of the Arminian crisis. You'll find a lot of parallels. Read Arminius. He squealed exactly the same way right up till he stopped exhaling CO. I'm not saying that the FV are identical to the Arminians, but there are a lot of parallels in their rhetoric, behavior, and in some of their theological ideas. Their system is a kind of "practical Arminianism," since having been united to Christ in baptism, it's up to us to do our part to cooperate with grace to retain the benefits of baptism. The decree becomes mostly theoretical in their system. It's there, but it doesn't function much.

There have been a lot of threads on this on the board. I'm probably repeating stuff here that I've written a dozen times. Sorry.

rsc



> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> This is a serious problem. They talk/write as if no one but they are smart enough to understand the gnostic mysteries of the FV/NPP.
> 
> It's a problem for serious dialogue. I've been working on this stuff since well before it was known as "the FV" (their self-designation which they now say, "doesn't exist"!) and it's been made considerably more difficult by their own obtuseness and their own refusal or inability to correlate their views to the Reformed tradition and by their unwillingness to say, "We disagree with the Reformed on this point..."
> ...



What would be the best to read from the FV side?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 13, 2006)

> What would be the best to read from the FV side?



Beisner, E. Calvin. ed. The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision. Ft Lauderdale: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004.

Wilkins, Steve, and Duane Garner, eds. The Federal Vision. Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2004.

Sandlin, P. Andrew, ed. Backbone of the Bible: Covenant in Contemporary Perspective. Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2004.

Fuller, Daniel P. Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum. [S.l.]: Eerdmans, 1980.

Fuller, Daniel P. "Response on the Subjects of Works and Grace." Presbyterion 9 (1983): 72-79.

Fuller, D. P. "Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum." Presbyterion 9 (1983): 72-79.

Garlington, Don. "A Study of Justification by Faith." Reformation & Revival 11 (2002): 55-73.

Garlington, D. B. "The Obedience of Faith in the Letter to the Romans." Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991): 47-72.

Garlington, D. B. "The Obedience of Faith in the Letter to the Romans." Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993): 281-97.

Lusk, Rich. "N. T. Wright and Reformed Theology: Friends or Foes?" Reformation & Revival 11 (2002): 35-52.

Sandlin, P. Andrew. "Lutheranized Calvinism: Gospel or Law, or Gospel and Law." Reformation & Revival 11 (2002): 123-35.

Shepherd, Norman. "Covenant Context for Evangelism." In New Testament Student and Theology, 51-75. [S.l]: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub, 1976.

Shepherd, Norman. The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illumines Salvation and Evangelism. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2000.

Shepherd, Norman. "Justification by Faith Alone." Reformation & Revival 11 (2002): 75-90.

van der Waal, C. The Covenantal Gospel. Translated by Mr. and Mrs. G. L. Bertram and H. DeJong Jr. Neerlandia, AB: Inheritance Publications, 1990.

Not all these are explicitly FV but they all argue similar views and feed the current FV movement. 

rsc


----------



## MW (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> What would be the best to read from the FV side?



Doug Wilson is the closest to historic orthodoxy, I think, and he often distances himself from things which other FVers teach. There is an honest response to the OPC report by him at Blog and Mablog. Joel Garver probably has the best understanding of the historical material being wielded. Horne, Myers and Lusk are the radicals of the group because they are trying to incorporate episcopal elements of liturgical renewal and sacramental efficacy.

The FVers are really only speaking the language of confusion that has been brooding in Presbyterianism since the 60s. It would be important to note the kinds of exceptions the OPC and PCA have been allowing in candidates for the ministry. It is hard to understand why these were allowed their exceptions, while others are treated as heterodox. I don't agree that the exceptions should have been allowed, but I do think there is some partiality being shown. The way forward for those denominations that have lapsed should be self-conviction first, then reformation, then deal with those who are not willing to reform with them. When the OPC and PCA repent of their doctrinal compromises in the past, then and only then will they have a basis upon which to prosecute doctrinal compromise.

[Edited on 9-14-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## tewilder (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> Does anyone one to interact with the heart of Shepherd's argument...i.e. the ground of our Justification is not the active obedience of Christ, but rather his passive obedience (this death and resurrection)?



Why? This is hardly new. This is dispensationalism's argument. After all the theologians who have expounded on the Reformed bicovenantal system, if now Shepherd, having read much of them, decides he does not accept bicovenantalism as Biblical, what more "interaction" is going to change his mind? 

If the Reformed covanantal system is not convincing what new thing can be rushed into print to make it convincing? 

Shepherd is saying that he simply cannot accept Reformed theology in any mature expression. He can live with early stuff that is sufficiently undeveloped that he can spin it his way. In other words, he has his own development, and not the Westminster or "scholastic" one, that he wants to put on it. 

What is so wonderful about Shepherd that we would pick him over the Westminster Assembly? What is so wonderful about the Federal Vision (some of whom seem to think that the Enlightenment took place around 1550) that we would pick their theology over the Westminster Assemblies?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> ...


Interesting critique. I think you're right.


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> Doug Wilson is the closest to historic orthodoxy, I think, and he often distances himself from things which other FVers teach. There is an honest response to the OPC report by him at Blog and Mablog.



Have you read _Reformed is Not Enough?_ Or heard of spin? 

www.christkirk.com/Literature/ReformedIsNotEnough.pdf


----------



## tewilder (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> Doug Wilson is the closest to historic orthodoxy, I think, and he often distances himself from things which other FVers teach. There is an honest response to the OPC report by him at Blog and Mablog.



Wilson wants to be the next Francis Schaeffer or R.C. Sproul, so he has to be careful what he says. But he publishes the post-modern Leithart, while pretending to do be anti-post-modern, and in similar ways shows that he is engaging in a juggling act. Wilson will say the most extreme things, but back off when confronted.



> Joel Garver probably has the best understanding of the historical material being wielded.



Garver has an actual education. But don't imagine that he is not into the radical liturgical stuff.



> Horne, Myers and Lusk are the radicals of the group because they are trying to incorporate episcopal elements of liturgical renewal and sacramental efficacy.



Also clericalism and institutionalism.

And Jordan and Leithart. This is really the heart of it. Sandlin and Schlissel are against this, by the way, which is why they are not Federal Vision.



> The FVers are really only speaking the language of confusion that has been brooding in Presbyterianism since the 60s. It would be important to note the kinds of exceptions the OPC and PCA have been allowing in candidates for the ministry.



What exceptions? I don't think either Meyers or Horne took exceptions. Also they went to the PCA's official seminary, Covenant, where they got a lot of their ideas. 

Anyway Horne is now practicing how to speak the language of Matthew Winzer. Your posts over the last week have inspired him. He figures that if he can express the FV theology in a way that sounds just like you he will be safe in the PCA. All they are saying, in his current version, is that they believe in the imputation of the active obedience of Christ but without there being any merit in the Covenant of Works. 



> The way forward for those denominations that have lapsed should be self-conviction first, then reformation, then deal with those who are not willing to reform with them. When the OPC and PCA repent of their doctrinal compromises in the past, then and only then will they have a basis upon which to prosecute doctrinal compromise.



The way forward would be to stop supporting seminaries that teach bad theology when they teach any theology at all. What the seminaries do is rush the students through a short sequence in theology, which is often the students' first exposure to these ideas, and then intiatiate them into what the faculty really care about, namely the current fads in Biblical theology.


----------



## MW (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> Anyway Horne is now practicing how to speak the language of Matthew Winzer. Your posts over the last week have inspired him. He figures that if he can express the FV theology in a way that sounds just like you he will be safe in the PCA. All they are saying, in his current version, is that they believe in the imputation of the active obedience of Christ but without there being any merit in the Covenant of Works.



Party spirit only reveals a petty spirit, 1 Cor. 3:3. Spiritual men can distinguish things that differ.

[Edited on 9-14-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## MW (Sep 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...




I was answering the question who would be best of the FVers to read, not recommending him as a good read in and of itself. And no doubt there is spin taking place on both sides.


----------



## KenPierce (Sep 14, 2006)

Doug Wilson, to co-opt the words of a friend, "makes a lot of orthodox noises." The problem is that Wilson's view of logic and argumentation allows for self-contradiction. Thus, in part of Reformed Is Not Enough, he argues for historic Reformed orthodoxy. In the latter part, he radically redefines all the traditional terms.

In my humble opinion, Wilson is prolific but not profound. He writes popularly, but doesn't think deeply. It is impossible to refute him, because he simply shifts the ground of the debate. IT all makes me so ! These people drive me s


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 14, 2006)

> I was answering the question who would be best of the FVers to read, not recommending him as a good read in and of itself. And no doubt there is spin taking place on both sides.



Fair enough. I was only addressing your comment that Doug Wilson "œis the closest to historic orthodoxy." You don´t have to read far into his clever manipulation of Reformed system of faith in _Reformed is Not Enough_ to realize this is simply not the case. See also Dr. Robbins and my reply to Wilson´s FV manifesto at http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=136 . Wilson likes to mix things up by stressing how he and all his other FV cohorts differ. The problem with Wilson and those who buy into that shell game, is that it is what these men agree on that makes their doctrines deadly. I was only concerned that your language seemed to give Wilson a pass and that he is really an sound teacher who may have been taken in by some heterodox teaching hear and there. Nothing could be further from the truth. These men are clever and are very skillful in putting the right face on as circumstances and audiences change.

[Edited on 9-15-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## MW (Sep 14, 2006)

I don't disagree with the last two responses. The problem is that the "reformed" views I often hear espoused are certainly "not enough" according to traditional standards. The FV men make glaring miistakes. I would never say an obedient faith justifies or that one can fall away from saving grace. But if the FVers tend towards neonomianism, their respondents often move towards antinomianism. Before this debate I had never seen the active obedience of Christ separated from His righteousness as a whole, and spoken about as if it is the basis for a believer's justification. Antinomians used to speak so, but the orthodox didn't. More care needs to be taken on both sides.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Sep 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> I don't disagree with the last two responses. The problem is that the "reformed" views I often hear espoused are certainly "not enough" according to traditional standards. The FV men make glaring miistakes. I would never say an obedient faith justifies or that one can fall away from saving grace. But if the FVers tend towards neonomianism, their respondents often move towards antinomianism. Before this debate I had never seen the active obedience of Christ separated from His righteousness as a whole, and spoken about as if it is the basis for a believer's justification. Antinomians used to speak so, but the orthodox didn't. More care needs to be taken on both sides.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Before this debate I had never seen the active obedience of Christ separated from His righteousness as a whole, and spoken about as if it is the basis for a believer's justification.



I haven't heard this! Exactly what are these people espousing by saying this? Do you have any resources to point me to?

Thanks,


----------



## MW (Sep 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



Mostly they are reacting to the FV and especially the Norman Shepherd way of stating it, but they use careless language in the process.

It is in general interaction that the statement is commonly made, but I find it also in written reports on and rebuttals of the FV. Consider, for example, the OPC report, p. 88, and what it considers out of accord with Scripture:



> 11. A denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in our justification.



I read in Scripture and reformed divines of the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us, and that the active obedience of Christ constitutes an important part of that righteousness; but where has the idea come from that the active obedience itself is imputed? The modern mode of stating the doctrine is prone to create confusion because it imagines that individual parts of Christ's righteousness accomplish different aspects of justification.


----------



## ef (Sep 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...





As a guy who was, in his young ill-informed years, rather gung-ho about Covenant Seminary I have only one thing to say...

"Westminster Seminary California... you _know_ its the right thing to do."

[Edited on 9-15-2006 by ef]


----------



## py3ak (Sep 14, 2006)

> The FV men make glaring miistakes. I would never say an obedient faith justifies or that one can fall away from saving grace.



Mr. Winzer,

I strongly suspect that at this point a FV person would ask you: "Would you say that a disobedient faith justifies?"
How would you reply to that?


----------



## MW (Sep 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> 
> 
> > The FV men make glaring miistakes. I would never say an obedient faith justifies or that one can fall away from saving grace.
> ...



It is faith neither as obedient or as disobedient that justifies. It is faith alone that is the instrument of justification, though the faith that justifies is never alone. To say that an obedient faith justifies suggests that the quality of obedience has something to do with the act of justification. At which point we would be led to ask, what constitutes obedient faith? When can I be sure that my faith has reached a level of obedience which warrants me to take Christ as my righteousness? Which any one can see leads the sinner to find some qualification in himself and therefore hinders him from freely coming to Christ for righteousness and life.

Blessings!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> 
> 
> > The FV men make glaring miistakes. I would never say an obedient faith justifies or that one can fall away from saving grace.
> ...


I wonder if I could offer a response to this question?

The short answer is "no".

But the larger question is: Why are we merging catgories? What is to be gained by _failing_ to distinguish between things that differ?

The point is, that "Faith alone" justifies. That saving faith is never _alone, but is ever accompanied by all other saving graces_ (WCF 9.2), does not countenance conflation of terms so that one may properly speak of the "faith that saves" as "obedient faith." Especially when that "compliant" characteristic is pressed back into the singularity that constitutes "justification". 

The FV (for whatever reason) seem adamant to use this kind of language, even when they are taken to task for it. What they apparently do is insist that the faith that characterizes the life of the believer (faith that "works by love") is the *same* faith that saved them. But this is again a failure to distinguish.

It is the failure to express the difference between *sight* and *seeing*. The faith that saves is the apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, the reception of the light of the gospel. Faith ("sight") is the instrument of justification, the effect of regeneration, its presence being the "condition" of justification (that apart from having it, no one will be justified).

That continued faith ("seeing") is "no dead faith" but acts in obedience to the will of God expressed by revelation does not make all these acts of faith _one faith,_ and thus justifying. In other words, we are not justified in the past (or present or future) by our "seeing" but _were justified_ by our having "sight", at the moment we were given it as a gift (being by nature blind/dead).

So, in turn we seem shut up to the conclusion that opposing FV, and pointing out the impropriety of such language as "obedient faith that justifies" continues to be necessary. Whatever remains to be said about our justification will not make us any more righteous, since the basis for our righteousness is Christ's work, not mine anyway. Nor will the fact that I "kept believing (seeing) til the end" ever constitute any part of the basis or be instrumental in the _open acknowledgement and acquittal_ (WSC 38) of the resurrection.


----------



## tewilder (Sep 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by py3ak_
> ...


----------



## turmeric (Sep 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> 
> The lastest FV line is that we are united to to Christ and so everything about Christ is imputed to us, including his life, and his obdience, and his righteousness.



Now I'm *really* confused.




> What this unon is always remains mysterious, and I doubt that they could explain themselves, but does that make them usual? (I have heard about union with Christ all my life, but no one has yet told me what he means by it.)



You can say _that_ again!



> So while the standard theology thinks in legal covenantal terms, as such, so that when we think with reference to meeting the requirements of the Covenant of Works we speak of Active Obedience, and when we think of sin and its penalty we think of passive obedience, the FV thinks of union with God. Then if you want to describe that in various aspects, these are just subsequent analytical distinctions for the sake of descriptive detail about one reality.



So they *do* believe in Christ's active obedience?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 15, 2006)

As one of my students noted to me, Doug Wilson has recently (on his blog) come out in favor of the active obedience of Chirst (he cites the gospel of Matthew as his primary inspiration). It's okay to deny it, he says, but if you do you're really missing out on great stuff. This is an improvement, but it makes it a second blessing for the Illuminati. 

The rest of them (e.g., Lusk, Barach and Jordan), at the moment of this post (6:37 AM Pacific) still reject the imputation of the active obedience of Christ.

On union, it's only suggestive, but I did post some distinctions on some threat recently. There's a bit from Witsius who speaks about union in 3-4 different ways. I find those distinctions quite helpful.

I don't recall what Wilson said about faith, but for most of them anyway have us united to Christ through baptism. 

Union is quite important to our theology, but it isn't faith. WCF 11.1 and HC 21 don't substitute union for faith. Baptism is very important, but it isn't faith. Only faith is the instrument in the act of justification. 

It's good to see Doug moving _ toward _ orthodoxy on this point, but caution is in order. If his theological movements were a car on a freeway, he would probably be pulled over for a sobriety test.

rsc


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_But the larger question is: Why are we merging catgories? What is to be gained by _failing_ to distinguish between things that differ?
> ...


And every time they utter post-modern jargon like this, they visibly _distinguish_ themselves from the Confessional church, with its doctrinal definitions. Rev. Winzer's comment about "spiritual men" is relevant. So I say: "Blab away." Either the denominations will spew them out, or us.

Abolishing distinctions ("real" or otherwise) means no more particulars, which means nothing left to say. *So who says they get to say which ones are "artificial"? Them?*


> The lastest FV line is that we are united to to Christ and so everything about Christ is imputed to us, including his life, and his obdience, and his righteousness.
> 
> What this unon is always remains mysterious, and I doubt that they could explain themselves, but does that make them usual? (I have heard about union with Christ all my life, but no one has yet told me what he means by it.)


My post was addressed specifically to Ruben's query, so "the latest FV line" really isn't to the point (re. justification by faith). As many analysts have pointed out, FV is _nothing_ if not amorphous. I am willing to accept you have and are reading their latest material, and are the better informed. Their doctrine of union, however, is tangled up in their sacramentalism.

As for your understanding "union with Christ," have you studied the WSC? Q. 30 uses the term explicitly, and the whole discussion in the Confession (chs. 8-18) on our salvation is suffused with the dosctrine. Do you own a reformed Systematic Theology text? I'm not saying UwC is something easily grasped, but it is not beyond us. Scripturally, the term "in Christ" is a key phrase. It is a doctrine that is best understood by reflection and meditation. Our appreciation for it grows as we grow in the faith, because as time goes by, our living "in Christ" itself creates a ever deepening context for our awareness and intellectual penetration.


> So while the standard theology thinks in legal covenantal terms, as such, so that when we think with reference to meeting the requirements of the Covenant of Works we speak of Active Obedience, and when we think of sin and its penalty we think of passive obedience, the FV thinks of union with God. Then if you want to describe that in various aspects, these are just subsequent analytical distinctions for the sake of descriptive detail about one reality.


This is a language game, a smoke-screen. Even orthodox theologians acknowledge that there is a unity to God's decree. We can all "boil down" theology to an essential stew if we want. However, the Bible our source, does not say just one thing on every page. The Bible is full of particulars. The accusation that the WCF, and "standard theology" generally, is just imposing artificial analytical distinctions to show detail is self-serving. (Especially when these guys turn right around and use terms--sometimes the very same--to describe what they themselves wish to talk about.) The Bible itself gives us pieces of the whole so that we can analyze and synthesize. That is our creaturely lot.



> Recall also all the abstract propositions that they have uttered against abstract propositions, and how they love narratives and post-modern theories of meaning.
> 
> The FV is not just twiddling with a few doctrines.


Again, my purpose was to answer Ruben more precisely than this scatter-shot (and more philosophical) assessment of FV as a movement. Dr. RSC has already alluded to the wide-ranging nature of the analysis necessary for a full-spectrum critique of the movement.


----------



## crhoades (Sep 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> If his theological movements were a car on a freeway, he would probably be pulled over for a sobriety test.
> 
> rsc



This is going in my quote book. One of the better polemical ones i've ever heard. Doug Wilson would be proud of ya!


----------



## py3ak (Sep 15, 2006)

Thanks, Mr. Winzer & Bruce (--and Bruce, you are always welcome to comment on anything you see fit: your posts are often helpful to me).

I understand what you are saying. I guess it depends on what question is being asked whether it is a problem or not. For instance, over against a "decisional regeneration" sort of person we might all insist that saving faith is obedient --not because the obedience is in any way the ground or instrument of justification, but because a true faith is never alone. But over against a romanist, obviously, we would emphasize that it is faith alone that is the instrument of justification.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



I have to admit, that was funny.


----------



## tewilder (Sep 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> 
> 
> So they *do* believe in Christ's active obedience?



Now they do. Defined their own way.

Mark Horne recently noticed that Jesus is the new Israel. As new Israel, Jesus fulfills the covenents with Israel. But, that turns out to be active obedience. As we are incorporated in Christ this active obedience is imputed to us.

So, now he sees that he believes in the imputation of active obedience in a covenantal sense. The big danger here is that Horne may begin to see as well the point of the Covenant of Works, and then he could tumble into orthodoxy and the Federal Vision will have lost one of their spokesmen.


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I don't recall what Wilson said about faith, but for most of them anyway have us united to Christ through baptism.



Here's Wilson on faith:



> Now this fides salvifica does not cause obedience in the way that a billiard ball striking another one causes it to move. It is not mechanical. Rather, it brings about obedience organically, the way life in a body causes that body to breathe. As a body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead (Jas. 2:26). This is why saving faith necessarily lives and acts. One of the principal acts performed by such saving faith is the act of trusting in Christ alone for both justification and sanctification.
> 
> Think of it this way. Saving faith is a mother who always bears twins"”"”justification and sanctification, in that order"”"”so that we can see easily that when justification is born, his mother does not die, but rather brings his younger brother obedience into the world. But we cannot forget an important part of the illustration. The "œ"œmother"""”"”faith"”"”is trusting and obedient in how she gives birth. Saving faith is the alone _trusting_ instrument of justification, and, immediately following,_ that same saving faith_ the alone _trusting_ instrument of sanctification, and reveals itself always as a faith working through love. Saving faith that does not trust and obey is a saving faith that does not exist. We never have raw faith without trust, and then, a moment later, trust arrives.
> 
> ...



Notice, a faith that saves "is related to ongoing fidelity, trust or obedience in the same way that a body is related to breathing." I can hardly think of any clearer expression of salvation by faith and works. Notice too how Wilson disparages simple belief; "We never have raw faith without trust, and then, a moment later, trust arrives." For Wilson faith is doing and it's our doing through faith that saves us. This is Romanism. 

And, another from Wilson that will warm Dr. Clark's heart  





> Faith Unplugged
> Topic: Auburn Avenue Stuff
> 
> I guess I should be pleased that I caught up with Peter Leithart. The April edition of _The Trinity Review_ is a chapter from a book called _Not Reformed At All_, which presents itself as a response to my "_Reformed" is Not Enough._ I am tempted to write another book entitled _And Both Are Too Much._
> ...



You have to be impressed by this clever slight of hand. Belief and faith are the English derivatives taken from the Greek and Latin translations of the same Greek word; pistis. Yet, in Wilson's theology faith and belief are different animals entirely, as should be evident from his discussion of faith above. Keep that in mind next time Wilson or one of his cohorts insist that we are saved by faith and even faith alone. Wilson denies salvation by mere (what he calls "raw") belief alone and he even avoids the tautological use of the traditional definition of faith in the process. He has a very clear purpose for the fiducial aspect of faith and that has to do with our own "ongoing fidelity" that saves us. Touche'.

[Edited on 9-15-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## JOwen (Sep 15, 2006)

[quote
It's good to see Doug moving _ toward _ orthodoxy on this point, but caution is in order. If his theological movements were a car on a freeway, he would probably be pulled over for a sobriety test.

rsc [/quote]

Too funny!


----------

