# Good works or baptism?



## tewilder (Oct 19, 2006)

Here is an interesting fork in the road: While some Federal Vision people say that Christians are the people who have been baptised, and seem willing to say that members of all sorts of groups with a trinitarian baptism qualify, Norman Shepher says something else:

<blockquote>
The righteous in the Bible are sinners who have confessed their sin and who have repented of it. They are not without sin, but they seek pardon every day in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Because they believe in Jesus they seek to walk according to his word in love and faithfulness. Like Abraham and Job they fear God and shun evil. Brothers and sisters, if we do not fear God and shun evil we have no right to be called Christians, and we have no right to be members of this church or any other Christian church.

http://www.christianculture.com/cgi-local/npublisher/viewnews.cgi?category=3&id=1161228025
</blockquote>

So for him, it takes a moral reorientation of life and good works to be a Christian (faith, too). 

Also it helps to be illogical. Job was justified because his faith overcame his logic.

So what will it be? The outward ritual that makes the Christian or the inward moral striving (with faith)? How long can the Federal Vision walk with a foot on each path before splitting into two?

[Edited on 10-19-2006 by tewilder]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 19, 2006)

It helps to be illogical?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 19, 2006)

I see no problem with what Shepherd says here.


----------



## tewilder (Oct 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> It helps to be illogical?



If he had been logical he would have blamed God, but being a Vantillian he remained just. Or so we are to think.


----------



## tewilder (Oct 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> I see no problem with what Shepherd says here.



If a Christian is anyone who has been baptized and not excommunicated, as some Federal Vision people say, how can being a Christian depend on living a righteous life? Which is it really?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> ...



Who said being a Christian depends on living a righteous life? Who says it depends on being baptized and not excommunicated?

From the quote you provided, Shepherd basically said that Christians love God and strive to obey His commands (cf: James – faith and works).



> The righteous in the Bible are sinners who have confessed their sin and who have repented of it.



Amen



> They are not without sin, but they seek pardon every day in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.



Amen



> Because they believe in Jesus they seek to walk according to his word in love and faithfulness.



Amen



> Like Abraham and Job they fear God and shun evil.



Amen



> Brothers and sisters, if we do not fear God and shun evil we have no right to be called Christians, and we have no right to be members of this church or any other Christian church.



Amen


----------



## tewilder (Oct 20, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> Who said being a Christian depends on living a righteous life? Who says it depends on being baptized and not excommunicated?
> 
> From the quote you provided, Shepherd basically said that Christians love God and strive to obey His commands (cf: James – faith and works).



Lets take a specific example. Maybe you can see the point that way.

Take that nice little Roman Catholic girl Paris Hilton. What's her situation?

The Wilson view: She was baptized and never excommunicated, and is not under church discipline. Therefore she is a Christian. In fact she should not even worry, for to do so would be morbid introspection, a looking inward instead of to the objective facts of the covenant.

The Shepherd view: She is much too sinful and her life is not oriented to a life of faithfulness. Therefore she is not a Christian.

These two views are both taken up by the Federal Vision, which prides itself on having solved the problem of assurance of salvation.

Now, do you see a problem here or not?


----------



## py3ak (Oct 21, 2006)

Ah, this brings up an issue I was thinking about. Dr. Clark, in the first lecture of his series that is on Sermonaudio, answered the question, "How do I know I am a Christian?" in this way: "I believe in Jesus and I'm not under church discipline". Dr. Clark, that is substantially correct, is it not?
And it brought up to my mind the fact that most of the adulterers, harlots, thieves, swindlers, ****ography-peddlers and pedophiles around me could say something similar (just to be clear, I am not accusing Dr. Clark of any one of those things). 
If we take the FV approach and say they are baptized and not under church discipline, well the same would be true. Most people have been baptized in the Roman Catholic church: most have very ungodly lives; yet they are not under church discipline.


----------



## brymaes (Oct 21, 2006)

> Take that nice little Roman Catholic girl Paris Hilton. What's her situation?



She needs to be "grabbed by her baptism"!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 23, 2006)

tewilder said:


> Lets take a specific example. Maybe you can see the point that way.
> 
> Take that nice little Roman Catholic girl Paris Hilton. What's her situation?
> 
> ...



I understand Norman Shepherd and company are in error. But the quote in question is fine. The only Federal Vision-esque part of it is the author, but you were asking about the quote.


----------



## tewilder (Oct 23, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> I understand Norman Shepherd and company are in error. But the quote in question is fine. The only Federal Vision-esque part of it is the author, but you were asking about the quote.



So your point is what? It's OK to hold to a contradiction if half the contradiction is right?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 23, 2006)

tewilder said:


> So your point is what? It's OK to hold to a contradiction if half the contradiction is right?



What contradiction? You asked about the quote which I see nothing wrong with. Show me what is wrong with Shepherd's quote.


----------



## tewilder (Oct 23, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> What contradiction? You asked about the quote which I see nothing wrong with. Show me what is wrong with Shepherd's quote.



No, I asked about a contradiction.

"So what will it be? The outward ritual that makes the Christian or the inward moral striving (with faith)?"


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 23, 2006)

tewilder said:


> No, I asked about a contradiction.
> 
> "So what will it be? The outward ritual that makes the Christian or the inward moral striving (with faith)?"



I don't see a contradiction in the quote you provided.

I disagree that Shepherd stated that it "takes a moral reorientation of life and good works to be a Christian."


----------



## tewilder (Oct 23, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> I don't see a contradiction in the quote you provided.
> 
> I disagree that Shepherd stated that it "takes a moral reorientation of life and good works to be a Christian."




Of course it is not in the quote I provided. Since it is between that quote and the other view on the subject held by various Federal Vision people.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 23, 2006)

tewilder said:


> Of course it is not in the quote I provided. Since it is between that quote and the other view on the subject held by various Federal Vision people.




For clarification, who and what are you referring to when you said: 


> So for him, it takes a moral reorientation of life and good works to be a Christian (faith, too).


----------



## tewilder (Oct 23, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> For clarification, who and what are you referring to when you said:



That's Shepherd.

Of course, the brief sermon does not remove abiguity about this, so we can go to some of his other writings to see what he means more exactly. 

Shepherd is concerned about people in the church being too sinful. Those Dutch! He is putting up the moral life as a boundary marker. Faith, where faith=faithfulness.

But how can it also be true that it is morbid to worry about that and that we should only look to our institution status as marked out by sacraments? 

These are among the contraditions that Federal Visionists believe every morning before breakfast.


----------



## nominalist747 (Oct 23, 2006)

*Where's the contradiction?*

Wilson at least holds to both of these without contradiction, since he clearly distinguishes _two different senses_ of the word "Christian."

"A Christian, _in one sense_, is anyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit by an authorized representative of the Christian church. Does this mean that anyone so baptized is a Christian in _the other sense_--one who is born of the Spirit of God. _Not at all_...Christians _in the first sense alon_e are condemned to hell...This means that if someone has been a Christian his whole life, but then comes into the new life that Christ presented to Nicodemus, we can say that he has become a Christian _inwardly_...He has become a Christian _in truth_...we might even say that he has become a Christian." (_'Reformed' Is Not Enough_, pp. 19-20, italics added).

He grounds this on Paul's statements in Rom. 2:28-29, and a parallel could also be found in 1 Cor. 11:20--in one sense, the Corinthians were eating the Lord's Supper, since it had the form of the sacrament, but in another sense they weren't, since the were ignoring the sacrifice in their selfishness.

This is what Aristotle called--if I recall correctly--a 'homologous' use of the word: e.g., a painted eye on a statue is not really an eye, since it lacks the virtue of the eye, namely the power of sight. Or, a dead man is only really called a 'man' homologously, since he isn't really a man--no longer living and rational. Examples could be multiplied: a sworn witness is still a witness, but just a false one, etc.

I don't see that a contradiction is necessary here, when the senses of the words are distinguished (just as Paul does with the senses of 'Jew' in Rom. 2:28-29 and 'Israel' in Rom. 9:6). The punishment upon apostates is because, claiming the name of Christ and the marks of the gospel, they were false and lying when they said so, not truly trusting in Christ (and as a consequence bearing fruit), but rather in their own works, or perhaps trusting in the covenant externals (like the Jews trusting their genetic heritage).

Not only do I not see a contradiction, but I don't see how this is unorthodox.


----------



## MW (Oct 23, 2006)




----------



## tewilder (Oct 24, 2006)

nominalist747 said:


> Wilson at least holds to both of these without contradiction, since he clearly distinguishes _two different senses_ of the word "Christian."
> ...



OK. Lets think about it practially.

Practical case:

Someone comes to you, worried about sin in his life, and wonders whether he is a Christian. Here is what Wilson says in the answer:

"Have you been baptized?" 

"Are you under church discipline?"

If the answers are "Yes" and "No", then don't worry. You are a Christian and should not be unsettled by doubts.

The about is what Wilson has been teaching, for example at a conference for high school students.

This stands in stark contrast to Shepherd's teaching that people should worry about sin, and if they were living lives of sin were not entitled to call themselves Christians. 

So on the practical level of how do you judge what you are in real life, we get two different answers. 

Now you can harmonize this by saying that there are two different, compatible senses of "Christian". But which do you apply to yourself as a practical matter in life if you are concerned about your salvation? Here we still get a conflict in answers. This conflict is _exactly_ in the area--assurance of salvation--that the Federal Vision prides itself on having solved.

Now Shepherd himself isn't Federal Vision, but someone that the Federal Vision wants to follow on the doctrine of justification (when they are not completely in New Perspectives mode). Shepherd had concerns that are probably not typical of Federal Vision people. He seemed very concered about the failure of Reformed doctrine, as classically preached, to take hold in the lives of people. He had a least one difficult congregation. There was something he was trying to fix. (Although he had at least some of his basic ideas already before he went into the pastorate.) The FV guys, on the other hand, don't seem to be worried about sinful, unresponsive congregations.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Oct 29, 2006)

tewilder said:


> Also it helps to be illogical. Job was justified because his faith overcame his logic.
> [Edited on 10-19-2006 by tewilder]



I was glad to see someone else took issue with this statement. Can you please explain what you mean by "illogical". In strict philosophical terms it means to say both A and non-A are true. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean, Job trusted God when it did not seem like the thing to do? Please clarify.


----------



## tewilder (Oct 30, 2006)

johnny_redeemed said:


> I was glad to see someone else took issue with this statement. Can you please explain what you mean by "illogical". In strict philosophical terms it means to say both A and non-A are true. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean, Job trusted God when it did not seem like the thing to do? Please clarify.



I mean to deny the Vantillian doctrine that we must be illogical in order to be faithful to God.


----------



## Scott (Oct 30, 2006)

I am not really a Doug Wilson fan, but it seems to me that JWD Smith's quote from Reformed is not Enough solves the contradiction.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Oct 30, 2006)

tewilder said:


> I mean to deny the Vantillian doctrine that we must be illogical in order to be faithful to God.


This did not help. I would like to know what you or Vantil meant by illogical. All you did was say we need to be illogical in order to be faithful. BUT, what does that mean. Please explain. In my post above I gave the text book definition. Is that what you are referring to? Or something else?


----------



## tewilder (Oct 30, 2006)

johnny_redeemed said:


> This did not help. I would like to know what you or Vantil meant by illogical. All you did was say we need to be illogical in order to be faithful. BUT, what does that mean. Please explain. In my post above I gave the text book definition. Is that what you are referring to? Or something else?



Read and exegete the sermon for yourself. I think it is clear enough what he meant, given what we know about his theological commitments, but maybe you think differently.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Oct 31, 2006)

Okay, lets us start over. You made this comment:



tewilder said:


> Also it helps to be illogical. Job was justified because his faith overcame his logic.
> 
> 
> [Edited on 10-19-2006 by tewilder]



This was not in a sermon, it was something you said. I would like to know what you mean by "illogical." Please clarify for me. Thank you....


----------



## tewilder (Oct 31, 2006)

johnny_redeemed said:


> Okay, lets us start over. You made this comment:
> 
> 
> 
> This was not in a sermon, it was something you said. I would like to know what you mean by "illogical." Please clarify for me. Thank you....



Read the sermon and see for yourself.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Oct 31, 2006)

tewilder said:


> Read the sermon and see for yourself.




I am lost. I read the link you gave. I am not understanding what that has to do with you saying we should be illogical. Instead of reporting the same thing again...can you please explain.


----------



## tewilder (Oct 31, 2006)

johnny_redeemed said:


> I am lost. I read the link you gave. I am not understanding what that has to do with you saying we should be illogical. Instead of reporting the same thing again...can you please explain.



When did I say we should be illogical?


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Oct 31, 2006)

tewilder said:


> When did I say we should be illogical?



In your first post you said:



tewilder said:


> Also it helps to be illogical.



This is why I am lost. Do you know you said this? I REALLY am lost. I am not trying to be a jerk.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2006)

johnny_redeemed said:


> In your first post you said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I am lost. Do you know you said this? I REALLY am lost. I am not trying to be a jerk.




I can understand your confusion, Josh. Perhaps I can help. He was being sarcastic in the second post. He was trying to (unsuccesfully) show that Van Til(lians) advocate irrationality. He didn't make his case, of course.


----------



## tewilder (Nov 1, 2006)

johnny_redeemed said:


> In your first post you said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I am lost. Do you know you said this? I REALLY am lost. I am not trying to be a jerk.



Here is a little hint. Reflect on the word "Also". What does it mean? How does it function grammatically? What does it link to?


----------



## tewilder (Nov 1, 2006)

Draught Horse said:


> I can understand your confusion, Josh. Perhaps I can help. He was being sarcastic in the second post. He was trying to (unsuccesfully) show that Van Til(lians) advocate irrationality. He didn't make his case, of course.



The course, the fact that the Shepherdites come right out and tell you that the fact that their doctrine is contrary to the Confessions is the sign that the doctrine is true because "Van Till taught that truth is illogical" had nothing to do with it! And John Frame himself said that the illogic had to be applied to the doctrine of justification.

Having heard this from Shepherd students, supporters and proteges, I know that this is their ideology. It is interesting that Shepherd himself could not pass up a chance to take a bash at logic.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 1, 2006)

Logical, illogical – this thread is confusing.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Nov 1, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> Logical, illogical – this thread is confusing.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Nov 1, 2006)

tewilder said:


> Here is a little hint. Reflect on the word "Also". What does it mean? How does it function grammatically? What does it link to?



I have been doing my best to treat you with respect in this thread, however, despite my best effort you have been continually rude. (it is possible I have miss read your last 5 posts, but I doubt it) A nice, polite, straight forward answer would have been preferred to this one. On this note, I would like to let you know that I am done interacting with you on this thread. Thank you for your time.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Nov 1, 2006)

Draught Horse said:


> I can understand your confusion, Josh. Perhaps I can help. He was being sarcastic in the second post. He was trying to (unsuccesfully) show that Van Til(lians) advocate irrationality. He didn't make his case, of course.




Thank you for helping me out.  I wish tewilder could have been so helpful. After all, it was his comments that I was asking about.

Again, thank you Jacob.


----------

