# A Short Credo on Justification: Douglas Wilson



## WrittenFromUtopia

Thoughts or comments?



> A Short Credo on Justification
> 
> Douglas Wilson
> 
> I believe that Jesus Christ was justified by God in His resurrection from the dead, being declared with power to be the Son of God (Rom. 1:4). He was justified in the Spirit (1 Tim. 3:16), vindicated by God, and exalted to the right hand of God the Father. This justification, along with Christ´s active and passive obedience, and all His other perfections, is imputed to His people, and is the only basis for all that they have in Him. This justification of Christ, this resurrection from the dead, was for our justification (Rom. 4:25).
> 
> I believe that God in His sovereign and secret decree has elected by name a countless number to eternal salvation (Eph. 1:11). Each of these elect are justified individually, and irreversibly, at the point of their conversion, when God imputes to them all the righteousness of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29-30). The ground of this justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, plus nothing, and is appropriated by the instrument of faith alone, plus nothing, and even this faith is to be understood as a gift of God, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-10).
> 
> I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ, an organic covenant body, is also justified, sanctified, regenerated, and elect. Because her sanctification, like ours, is not yet complete (Eph. 5:24-32), I believe that non-justified, non-elect, non-sanctified, and non-regenerated individuals can be covenant-breaking members of this covenant body for a time. But in the passage of time all such fruitless branches are removed (John 15:1-7; Rom. 11:20; Matt. 13:24-40). Non-elect warts are removed from the elect Bride (Eph. 5:27).
> 
> I believe that God established two distinct covenants with mankind, one before the Fall, and one after. The first covenant was called a covenant of works in the Westminster Confession (7.2). I would prefer to call it a covenant of creational grace. The condition of covenant-keeping in this first covenant was to believe God´s grace, command, warnings, and promise. If Adam had avoided sin in this temptation, he would have had no grounds for boasting, but could only say that God had graciously preserved him. "œPerfect and personal obedience," even for an unfallen man, is not possible unless he trusts in God´s goodness and grace. Because God endued Adam with the power and ability to keep covenant with Him (WCF 19.1), Adam was a recipient of grace, and thus, the sin that plunged our race into death was a revolt against grace.
> 
> The second covenant is a covenant of redemptive grace. The thing that the two covenants have in common is grace, not works. The condition for keeping this covenant is the same as the first, although the circumstances are different. The condition always is to believe God.
> 
> These points are made, not to smuggle "œworks" from the covenant of works into the covenant of grace, but rather the opposite. I believe we must insist that autonomous works be banished from every human realm and endeavor, whether fallen or unfallen (1 Cor. 1:31).


----------



## Puritan Sailor

And on what basis was Jesus justified? By works or grace?


----------



## kceaster

I will not deny that I believe there was some measure of grace in the garden. But I will not agree with him in his view about Adam. If Adam would not have been justified by his obedience, then we have to assume that Christ did not obtain justification for us with His obedience. The comparisons in Romans and 1 Corinthians should make that abundantly clear for Mr. Wilson.

I believe what he is saying is that he somewhat agrees, if not wholeheartedly, on the view of Adam the RCC puts forward; that Adam was not made perfectly good in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. I believe he also misses the fact that although Adam's obedience is not devoid of godly assistance, God did expect him to obey from the heart. To me, it seems that Mr. Wilson does not agree with the four-fold state of man if he insists that Adam could not have "autonomously" obeyed. He must be disagreeing then with what the divines said about our first parents, "...being left to the freedom of their own will."

He still has a ways to go, In my humble opinion. But at least he is not denying imputed justification by faith alone through the merits of Christ. That is a huge step.

He would have impressed me to death if he would have formed his credo more in accord with the standards. That seems to be his weak point in that he feels he must make some different statement than what has already been established, thus making his own way.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Saiph

> If Adam would not have been justified by his obedience, then we have to assume that Christ did not obtain justification for us with His obedience.



I am not sure that is valid. Type vs. Antitype works within a biblical framework as far as Federal headship goes, but Adam was able to fall, Christ, was not. 

We are justified by Christ's works, and He Himself is justified by his own works. The very nature of His human works are rooted in that He was without sin and had a divine nature as well.


Joh 5:36 But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. 

Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"

Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 

Joh 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." 

Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 


And we perform good works through the power of the indwelling Spirit, not our flesh:

Joh 14:12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. 

I have always thought Christ was the only man who could be justifies by his works . . is that wrong ?

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## kceaster

*Mark...*

It is not a question of ability, but of righteousness to the law. Adam was given a covenant by which he would live if he obeyed. He didn't, of course. But that didn't change what is required before a holy God. The remedy of the disobedience of the law is death, therefore, in Adam, all died. The grace of God in Christ is manifest in that He was given the same law to obey, and He did it all perfectly.

If you disallow the result of Adam's obedience, then by rights, you should disallow the result of Christ's obedience, because they fulfill the same thing - righteousness.

Adam faced the probation of God's creatures and failed. Christ faced that same probation and succeeded. That is a fuller-orbed federal headship. It doesn't hinge upon the ability, it hinges upon the probation set before the heads.

But that is why Christ is above all and better than any created being. He accomplished what no one else could. The accomplishment had to be made or none would be saved.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Arch2k

to Kevin.

This is where adding grace to the CoW leads a persons In my humble opinion.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> If Adam would not have been justified by his obedience, then we have to assume that Christ did not obtain justification for us with His obedience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure that is valid. Type vs. Antitype works within a biblical framework as far as Federal headship goes, but Adam was able to fall, Christ, was not.
> 
> We are justified by Christ's works, and He Himself is justified by his own works. The very nature of His human works are rooted in that He was without sin and had a divine nature as well.
> 
> 
> Joh 5:36 But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me.
> 
> Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
> 
> Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
> 
> Joh 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."
> 
> Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
> 
> 
> And we perform good works through the power of the indwelling Spirit, not our flesh:
> 
> Joh 14:12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.
> 
> I have always thought Christ was the only man who could be justifies by his works . . is that wrong ?
> 
> [Edited on 3-16-2006 by Saiph]
Click to expand...


Mark,

I would say the credo is a good example of confusion leading to problems. It most often comes from a sdesire to restate "better" classical formulations.

What do I mean? The initial two paragraphs are very good, and I say, "Amen!"



> I believe that Jesus Christ was justified by God in His resurrection from the dead, being declared with power to be the Son of God (Rom. 1:4). He was justified in the Spirit (1 Tim. 3:16), vindicated by God, and exalted to the right hand of God the Father. This justification, along with *Christ´s active and passive obedience*, and all His other perfections, is *imputed to His people*, and is the only basis for all that they have in Him. This justification of Christ, this resurrection from the dead, was for our justification (Rom. 4:25).
> 
> I believe that God in His sovereign and secret decree has elected by name a countless number to eternal salvation (Eph. 1:11). Each of these elect are *justified individually,* and irreversibly, at the point of their conversion, when God imputes to them all the righteousness of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29-30). The *ground of this justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, plus nothing*, and is appropriated by the *instrument *of faith alone, plus nothing, and even this faith is to be understood as a gift of God, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-10).



The problem comes in that as soon as Wilson speaks of a "Covenant of Creational Grace," he is (unwittingly?) militating against those paragraphs. How? If the first Covenant was one of grace, not works, then how does Christ come by obedience that is imputed to us? what is the active obedience that Wilson speaks of that is imputed? It can't be fulfillment of the Covenant, since Wilson also says that Adam would not have earned anything by his obedience. Classical Reformed theology says that God graciously determined to make a covenant (where He did not have to) and to grant a reward upon obedience (which He again did not have to do), but once He did make that Covenant, He was bound by His oath.

Further, I think that this statement is at least unclear:



> "Perfect and personal obedience," even for an unfallen man, is not possible unless he trusts in God´s goodness and grace



I don't see the Scriptures ever calling unfallen man, or glorified man to trust in God's grace (which presumes demerit), but rather to trust in God Himself. A small difference perhaps, but significant.

This credo expresses well for me where Wilson is - I think he is orthodox in his main doctrine, and especially on imputation and justification. But he too often (and in too many areas) desires to be "cute" or novel and that makes things less clear instead of more. Not a good thing. I don't think a blanket condemnation of Wilson is in order. Instead we should affirm what is good in what he says, and at the same time warn that he is a confusing teacher at times. I hope I am coming accross as balanced and not strident, because that is how I feel at the moment.


----------



## Saiph

Kevin and Fred,

Thank you for the clarifications. I am starting to see a difficulty in the concept of Adam not earning his prelapsarian spiritual sustenance by his own merit.

As for the following statement:



> "Perfect and personal obedience," even for an unfallen man, is not possible unless he trusts in God´s goodness and grace



I do not know what Wilson means here either. But I do believe in a type of determinism wherein even the reprobate depend on God's sustaining power, and work, to live breath and exist as human beings. Whether or not you want to call that "common grace" (because mere creation does not necessitate any obligation on God's behalf) or not, is not an argument I want to begin again. Whatever we decide to call that benefit of life and health vouchsafed to every human by God still implies that man is in no way autonomous, and so even Adam's obedience, in that sense, still depended on God's work in and through him.


----------



## kceaster

*Mark...*

This is where the four-fold state is beneficial because we can't look back on Adam and see it from the same perspective. He was created in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. Perhaps an analogous way to look at it would be that, if he were a car, this was standard equipment for him as was his builtin ability. He was made already sanctified. And that continued in him until his fall. 

I'm not saying that God created him and walked away, but we have to assume that, with original equipment, he could do whatever he wished because his will was predisposed to line up with what God willed. We say this because he had not yet sinned. Therefore we cannot attribute any thought, word, or deed as sinful to him before he fell. We cannot do that with Eve either. Nor could we say that he was being perfected before his fall. He was made upright and perfect.

In our state as a "car", knowledge, righteousness, and holiness are added options only after being regenerated by the Holy Spirit, in other words, we have to be sanctified. These options, though they come by God, are put into substandard equipment. And so they work as good as can be expected given both the will of God and the sin nature of man. With a renewed will and renewed parts, man can obey, but never coming near perfection, whereas Adam, when he obeyed, fully complied with God's will. His one act of disobedience made it so that we can never render perfect obedience even with God's help. So because of this, men still need alien righteousness even after they've been given every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. They still need sanctification in order to take hold of those blessings. 

Otherwise, why did Christ have to come and die? If God could make us righteous by giving us spiritual blessings and enabling us to perfectly obey, Christ is no longer needed. But that is not God's design.

So, I would say that Adam's obedience did not rely upon the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. God created him with ability and without sin, therefore, he could render obedience apart from the direct work of the Holy Spirit. Without sin, it is possible to please God, as we will do in eternity. 

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Saiph

Ok, Adam had intrinsic righteousness (infused), we have alien righteousness imputed (_extra nos_).

The dilemma I have is ontic. Adam still had to rely on God by faith, the revelation was more lucid, but the creature/creator dependance has to be there right ??



> Acts 17:26-29
> 
> And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.' Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.



How much, and what aspects of the _imago dei_ are/were diminished by the fall ?

Whatever those liminal qualities are, they require us now to be justified by the works of Christ, and sanctified internally by the Spirit.

Adam, was justified by himself, and I think still sanctified (or kept holy - sustained in a state of grace) by the same Spirit.


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Ok, Adam had intrinsic righteousness (infused), we have alien righteousness imputed (_extra nos_).
> 
> The dilemma I have is ontic. Adam still had to rely on God by faith, the revelation was more lucid, but the creature/creator dependance has to be there right ??



Creator/creature distinction is there. Adam relies upon God just as any other created thing. But, he is not relying upon God to save him as there is nothing to save him from. He was righteous according to the law, so God was pleased with him.




> How much, and what aspects of the _imago dei_ are/were diminished by the fall?



We are fallen in every part of our being. No amount of God's blessing upon us will remove our fallenness, which is why we require a full-orbed salvation from beginning to end.

I am assuming that you know and understand the four-fold state? If not, I can explain that further.



> Whatever those liminal qualities are, they require us now to be justified by the works of Christ, and sanctified internally by the Spirit.
> 
> Adam, was justified by himself, and I think still sanctified (or kept holy - sustained in a state of grace) by the same Spirit.



But that state of grace, is it saving or common? When we talk about grace we must be specific.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Saiph

Adam was not relying on God to save him, but do you think he might have been relying on God to keep him from falling ?

I was using grace as "common", and even when I use it as saving, I do not mean that in the ultimate soteriological sense. I will use the word elect, or regenration for that idea. I believe one can have different measures of grace (ie. Judas, Hebrews 6/10) without it necessarily leading to total salvation.

If grace is umnmerited favor . . well then . .what isn't grace ? Even breathing, and walking and God's covenant of the rainbow are unmerited.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Mark,

I hear echoes of this conversation you had with Dr. Clark:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16241&page=2

I don't know if this is an ontological issue as much as it is a covenantal issue...


----------



## Saiph

Because I am still not convinced.

Where does anyone on this board get from the bible that everything down to the synapses firing in your brain right now as you read these words are not total gifts of God's active and unmerited grace ?

Where does anyone get from the Bible that Adam and Christ were not ontologically different ?

And we will not be more "like God" ontologically as well as behaviorally in heaven than we are right now in this flesh ?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Fair enough Mark but is _Wilson's_ issue of the classic construction of the COW an issue of ontology? If it isn't then your concern might be better addressed in another thread. I think if we pursue your issue it may distract the real criticism of Wilson's thoughts.


----------



## py3ak

Mark, I think you bring up a point which does lead to some confusion of language. If we use grace to speak strictly in terms of God's favor to the guilty (I forget who defined it that way, maybe Geoff Thomas --though AW Pink is another option?) then it is obvious that there was no pre-lapsarian grace; there was what WCF 7.1 calls voluntary condescencion, in kindness giving a covenant whereby by entire, perpetual, personal obedience Adam could have some fruition of God as his blessedness and reward. Without that covenant, Luke 17:10 would have applied, as the WCF rightly notes because of the Creator/creature distinction. It seems clear that they are distinguishing voluntary condescencion from grace, in order to preserve that concept for man in sin.
If you read Spanish I've been tackling this a bit on my Spanish blog (in my signature). However, I have discovered that Babelfish is thoroughly unreliable for translation.


----------



## Saiph

Rich, if Wilson is viewing prelapsarian grace from an ontological perspective then I think his argument has some validity.

As Ruben mentioned from the WCF, the terminology of "voluntary condescencion" is for me and my pea brain, is synonymous with grace.

As I said, I believe there are degrees of grace. The degree by which men are delivered from darkness to light is salvific in the sense that it grants power to do what the law could not (Rom. 8:3-4). And I believe one can apostasize from that degree as stated in Hebrews 10:29 _How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? _

Perseverance is a matter of what God has done through His sovereign election, and so I agree with the doctrine as far as it is viewed from His vantage point. But assurance of the fact existentially is a gift of grace that comes with a life of obedience.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Rich, if Wilson is viewing prelapsarian grace from an ontological perspective then I think his argument has some validity.


Right but if he _isn't_ then you're opening up a separate .

From what I know of Wilson's work, I would be shocked if his concern was ontological. I think the issue here is one of covenant.

I really, really love reading what you have to write Mark because it helps me think. I'm only arguing that if this is not an issue of ontology that we ought to deal with the Covenantal issues in _this_ thread.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> A Short Credo on Justification
> 
> These points are made, not to smuggle "œworks" from the covenant of works into the covenant of grace, but rather the opposite. I believe we must insist that autonomous works be banished from every human realm and endeavor, whether fallen or unfallen (1 Cor. 1:31).


 [/quote]

Did Jesus perform "autonomous" works?


----------



## Saiph

Fair enough Rich, and maybe you are right about Wilson.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> *This credo expresses well for me where Wilson is - I think he is orthodox in his main doctrine, and especially on imputation and justification.* But he too often (and in too many areas) desires to be "cute" or novel and that makes things less clear instead of more. Not a good thing. *I don't think a blanket condemnation of Wilson is in order.* Instead we should affirm what is good in what he says, and at the same time warn that he is a confusing teacher at times. I hope I am coming accross as balanced and not strident, because that is how I feel at the moment.






Thank you for not throwing out the baby with the bathwater!


----------



## Magma2

Just my . 

I disagree with Fred when he wrote of Wilson; "œI think he is orthodox in his main doctrine, and especially on imputation and justification." I have to wonder if we´re all reading the same thing? Wilson´s "œcredo" is a thinly veiled denial of the Protestant doctrine of JBFA. Some of the clues:



> I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ, an organic covenant body, is also justified, sanctified, regenerated, and elect.



Reprobate, baptized members of the church, what most would have called nominal Christians or Christians in name only, are, per Wilson, equally "œjustified, sanctified, regenerated, and elect." So what differentiates elect members of the CoG who go to Heaven and those who go to Hell? For Wilson the CoG is conditional and the conditions are met by works done by faith through grace: 



> The condition for keeping this covenant is the same as the first [the Covenant of Works], although the circumstances are different.



I think Mark picked up what many might charitably think is Wilson´s equivocal use of the word justified as applied to Christ and as it is applied to members of the CoG. The problem is that what at first appears to be an equivocation turns out to be no equivocation at all. Jesus was justified by His faithful obedience to the demands and conditions of the Covenant and so are we. Faithful obedience to the conditions of the Covenant are what would have preserved Adam in the CoW and is what preserves those per the CoG who are "eschatologically" justified on the last day. Consider Wilson´s confession again:



> I believe we must insist that autonomous works be banished from every human realm and endeavor, whether fallen or unfallen (1 Cor. 1:31).



Notice Wilson has no intention of banishing works from his false doctrine of justification, just "œautonomous works." Wilson´s doctrine of justification is by works done by faith through grace. This is Romanism pure and simple and the second half of Wilson´s heretical "œcredo" contradicts the first as Wilson's doctrine of imputation turns out to be no imputation at all. Obviously it's Wilson´s hope that no one will notice his sleight of hand. Sad to say in the case of many Wilson´s wish has been answered.

[Edited on 3-30-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Magma2

As a nice and timely follow up for those who have been snookered or pacified by Wilson´s credo above, the new Trinity Review features an outstanding piece by Robert Reymond which supplies a nice response. Here´s just a bit:



> These teachers have rejected the clear Pauline teaching that justification is an act of God's free grace alone by which the moment a penitent sinner places his faith in Christ God forgives him of all of his sins forever and imputes to him and hence also to his weak and imperfect "œgood works"5 the perfection of the obedience of his Son Jesus Christ (see Acts 13:38-39; Galatians 2:16; Romans 1:16-17; 3:21-22, 28; 4:4-15; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 2:8-10), thereby constituting and declaring him righteous in his sight. *These teachers, either minimizing or denying altogether the imputation of Christ's active obedience to the believer, teach that justification is not a purely forensic declaration but a transforming activity in which the believer's obedience also plays a significant role in his justification.* This corrupted doctrine of justification includes within it the lie of Satan that Christ's righteousness is not enough in itself to justify and that obedience on the part of the believer is also necessary for his full and final justification before God." http://www.trinityfoundation.org/latest.php


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> I disagree with Fred when he wrote of Wilson; "œI think he is orthodox in his main doctrine, and especially on imputation and justification." I have to wonder if we´re all reading the same thing? Wilson´s "œcredo" is a thinly veiled denial of the Protestant doctrine of JBFA. Some of the clues:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ, an organic covenant body, is also justified, sanctified, regenerated, and elect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reprobate, baptized members of the church, what most would have called nominal Christians or Christians in name only, are, per Wilson, equally "œjustified, sanctified, regenerated, and elect." So what differentiates elect members of the CoG who go to Heaven and those who go to Hell? For Wilson the CoG is conditional and the conditions are met by works done by faith through grace:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The condition for keeping this covenant is the same as the first [the Covenant of Works], although the circumstances are different.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You miss the point that Wilson sees these terms in different senses.

As you know, the word "saved" doesn't always mean the same thing in Scripture. Neither does the word "justified". James 2 doesn't contradict Romans 4. They just are talking about different things, and are using words in different senses.

Wilson does NOT believe that 'Reprobate, baptized members of the church, what most would have called nominal Christians or Christians in name only, are . . . equally "œjustified, sanctified, regenerated, and elect."' --- That is a flatly false representation of what Wilson believes.

Before you critique someone, you should make sure that you understand their position. If Wilson truly believed that there were no distinction whatsoever between a reprobate member of the church and a regenerate member of the church, then I would cry foul just as much as you do. But Wilson does NOT believe that. Therefore your accusation is unfounded.

I have personally corresponded with Wilson's assistant, Mike Lawyer. And they explicitly affirm the fact presented by passages such as Matthew 7:23 & 1 John 2:19. There are those among us who are not of us, and who are not savingly known by the Lord. Wilson never denies this, except in your own mind.



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> I think Mark picked up what many might charitably think is Wilson´s equivocal use of the word justified as applied to Christ and as it is applied to members of the CoG. The problem is that what at first appears to be an equivocation turns out to be no equivocation at all. Jesus was justified by His faithful obedience to the demands and conditions of the Covenant and so are we. Faithful obedience to the conditions of the Covenant are what would have preserved Adam in the CoW and is what preserves those per the CoG who are "eschatologically" justified on the last day. Consider Wilson´s confession again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we must insist that autonomous works be banished from every human realm and endeavor, whether fallen or unfallen (1 Cor. 1:31).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice Wilson has no intention of banishing works from his false doctrine of justification, just "œautonomous works." Wilson´s doctrine of justification is by works done by faith through grace. This is Romanism pure and simple and the second half of Wilson´s heretical "œcredo" contradicts the first as Wilson's doctrine of imputation turns out to be no imputation at all. Obviously it's Wilson´s hope that no one will notice his sleight of hand. Sad to say in the case of many Wilson´s wish has been answered.
Click to expand...


Which doctrine of justification? As far as his personal, salvific doctrine of justification goes, it looks like yours and mine. 

But that doesn't keep him from using the word "justification" at other times, and in other senses, sort of like James did in James 2. Affirmation of some other justification does NOT automatically mean that he has abandoned his understanding of justification in the primary sense upon which we all agree.

Furthermore, who said that Wilson has "no intention of banishing works"? Just because he was trying to be helpful, clear, and specific by using the word "autonomous", you automatically assume he is trying to sneak some other kind of works in the back door? 

Have you given Wilson the courtesy of emailing him (or his assistant), or calling him, or writing him a letter, to find out whether or not you understand his position? Or does Matthew 18 mean nothing to you?

I am not a FV guy, and I do not endorse everything Wilson says or does. But he IS our brother in Christ, and he has done and is doing many good things for the church and family. People like you should be ashamed of yourselves. You have no right to anathematize him and call him a heretic until you can articulate his position in such a way that HE would agree that you understand it. And you are not even within ten miles of that. 

First, get your facts straight. Portray his position accurately.

THEN you will have earned the right to comment. If you understand his position, and then still want to call him a heretic, at least you will have a little better grounds for doing so. But as it stands, you are either involved in ignorance or slander, or a mixture of the two.

As Matthew 18 commands, please contact the parties you accuse, and get your facts straight first, instead of anathematizing them for things they don't even believe.


----------



## biblelighthouse

MODERATORS:

I just remembered that there used to be a rule on the PB to not defend Douglas Wilson.

However, since Pastor Fred Greco has publicly posted on this thread his opinion that Doug Wilson is within the bounds of orthodoxy, and is not a damned heretic, I assume that the old rule is gone, and that neither Fred Greco nor I will be kicked off the PB for defending a Christian brother from charges of heresy.

However, if I am mistaken, please U2U me so I can edit my statements in my post above. I do not want to break any PB rules.

(And if I receive a U2U asking me to edit my post, I will expect a similar U2U to be sent to Pastor Fred Greco.)



Again, Fred, I really want to thank you for your post above, and for your unwillingness to throw the baby out with the bathwater! Even if you don't agree with all of Wilson's theology, I commend you for defending him as being at least within the bounds of orthodoxy, a fellow brother in Christ. Like you, this is my goal.


----------



## Magma2

> As you know, the word "saved" doesn't always mean the same thing in Scripture. Neither does the word "justified". James 2 doesn't contradict Romans 4. They just are talking about different things, and are using words in different senses.
> 
> Wilson does NOT believe that 'Reprobate, baptized members of the church, what most would have called nominal Christians or Christians in name only, are . . . equally "œjustified, sanctified, regenerated, and elect."' --- That is a flatly false representation of what Wilson believes.



Hogwash Joseph and perhaps part of *your* problem is that you are not seeing Wilson´s anti-Christian deceptive "œcredo" in context of his other writings, specifically his book, _ Reformed is Not Enough_, where he writes:



> "œ. . . there 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).





> . . . when people are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they are ushered into an objective, visible, covenant relationship. Regardless of the state of their heart, regardless of any hypocrisy, regardless of whether or not they mean it, such people are now visible saints, Christians (194).



Per Wilson Christians are saved by their faithfulness, not by faith alone. That's the point. You need to take your blinders off.



> Before you critique someone, you should make sure that you understand their position. If Wilson truly believed that there were no distinction whatsoever between a reprobate member of the church and a regenerate member of the church, then I would cry foul just as much as you do. But Wilson does NOT believe that. Therefore your accusation is unfounded.



Where did I say Wilson makes no distinction whatsoever between a reprobate member of the church and a regenerate one? The distinction is individual faithfulness, not mere belief alone which is what put´s Wilson outside of the fellowship of believers and why I publically mark him, as should all Christian men, as the dangerous heretic he is. 




> Which doctrine of justification? As far as his personal, salvific doctrine of justification goes, it looks like yours and mine.



Maybe Wilson´s credo is yours, but I reject that works play any role, autonomous or otherwise, in justification. 



> But that doesn't keep him from using the word "justification" at other times, and in other senses, sort of like James did in James 2. Affirmation of some other justification does NOT automatically mean that he has abandoned his understanding of justification in the primary sense upon which we all agree.




I don´t see that "œall agree" on justification in the least Joseph. Some, like you, are in agreement with Wilson.




> Furthermore, who said that Wilson has "no intention of banishing works"? Just because he was trying to be helpful, clear, and specific by using the word "autonomous", you automatically assume he is trying to sneak some other kind of works in the back door?




Well, you seem to be the expert on Wilson´s theological and soteric views, why don´t you tell men why he added the word "œautonomous"to works in his view of justification? 



> Have you given Wilson the courtesy of emailing him (or his assistant), or calling him, or writing him a letter, to find out whether or not you understand his position? Or does Matthew 18 mean nothing to you?



Matthew 18 means very much to me, but it is irrelevant in this case. Wilson´s anti-Christian credo is a public statement and his book, Reformed is Not Enough, is also available publically and is even free for download in a pdf. His statements are a public attack on the Biblical doctrine of justification and should be treated as such. Perhaps you should study the book of Galatians to better understand how men who openly teach another gospel should be treated "“ or who even show any deference for those false teachers as in the case of Peter. 



> I am not a FV guy, and I do not endorse everything Wilson says or does. But he IS our brother in Christ, and he has done and is doing many good things for the church and family.



Sounds to me like you´re very much endorsing him here. Now you´re even praising him for all the good he´s done. 



> First, get your facts straight. Portray his position accurately.



I have portrayed Wilson´s position accurately and you have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise. Perhaps if you would present an argument next time instead of just emoting it might be more effective?



> However, since Pastor Fred Greco has publicly posted on this thread his opinion that Doug Wilson is within the bounds of orthodoxy, and is not a damned heretic, I assume that the old rule is gone, and that neither Fred Greco nor I will be kicked off the PB for defending a Christian brother from charges of heresy.



You have provided ample evidence why RE Greco´s remarks were misguided and has, even if inadvertently, given aid and cover to Christ's enemies.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> As you know, the word "saved" doesn't always mean the same thing in Scripture. Neither does the word "justified". James 2 doesn't contradict Romans 4. They just are talking about different things, and are using words in different senses.
> 
> Wilson does NOT believe that 'Reprobate, baptized members of the church, what most would have called nominal Christians or Christians in name only, are . . . equally "œjustified, sanctified, regenerated, and elect."' --- That is a flatly false representation of what Wilson believes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash Joseph and perhaps part of *your* problem is that you are not seeing Wilson´s anti-Christian deceptive "œcredo" in context of his other writings, specifically his book, _ Reformed is Not Enough_, where he writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "œ. . . there 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).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . when people are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they are ushered into an objective, visible, covenant relationship. Regardless of the state of their heart, regardless of any hypocrisy, regardless of whether or not they mean it, such people are now visible saints, Christians (194).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Sean, would you care to tell me what problem you have with Wilson's statements above? I have read "Reformed is Not Enough". And I think Calvin or Witsius would be perfectly happy with both of the quotes you just referenced.

You would do well to read these articles concerning the book, and the twisting that people like yourself have done with it:
http://ecsowder.blogplot.com/categorylist_html?cat_id=17

You see, *IF* Wilson were saying that a person were automatically in a _eternally saving relationship_ with Christ, regardless of the state of their hearts, *then of course it would be heresy*. _But that is NOT what Wilson is saying at all._

Rather, Wilson is simply pointing out the fact that unregenerate people are _in relationship_ with God. But he is certainly not saying that it is a _good relationship_ or a _saving relationship_.

For example, consider Korah. He was "baptized into Moses" just as much as all the other Israelites were (cf. 1 Cor. 10:2). But he nevertheless proved to be apostate, a covenant breaker, and God caused him to be consumed into a fiery pit.

Or consider Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11. There are unregenerate people who are part of the covenant tree. Then, because of their unbelief, they are "cut off" of the tree. Well, you cannot be "cut off" from something unless you were connected to it in the first place.

You see, Douglas Wilson AGREES with you that an unregenerate person is not in relationship to God in the _same way_ that a regenerate person is in relationship to God. To borrow Wilson's analogy, an adulterous husband is not in relationship to his wife in the same way as a faithful husband. Nevertheless, he is her husband, and she is his wife.

So, a regenerate person and an unregenerate person can both be in covenant with God, just as Romans 11 says, and just as the majority of the Reformed community has always said. But what is the *difference* between these two people? The difference is FAITH! The unregenerate person has no faith in Christ, and so the covenant is condemning for him, rather than salvific. But the regenerate person does have the gift of faith, so the covenant is salvific for him, not condemning.

It seems like we have debated this elsewhere on this board, Sean. Several of us have made it abundantly clear what the historic Reformed position is: Both regenerate people and unregenerate people partake of the covenant. But only regenerate people partake of it savingly. --- This is basically what Wilson is saying. You just don't like the way he is saying it. And you don't have enough obedience to Christ to make sure you understand Wilson before you curse him. Shame on you!




> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Per Wilson Christians are saved by their faithfulness, not by faith alone. That's the point. You need to take your blinders off.



Hogwash.

Prove your statement. Or am I just supposed to take your word for it? Wilson has very clearly said, repeatedly, that Christians are saved by faith ALONE. He believes in _sola fide_ just as much as you and I do.



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you critique someone, you should make sure that you understand their position. If Wilson truly believed that there were no distinction whatsoever between a reprobate member of the church and a regenerate member of the church, then I would cry foul just as much as you do. But Wilson does NOT believe that. Therefore your accusation is unfounded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say Wilson makes no distinction whatsoever between a reprobate member of the church and a regenerate one? The distinction is individual faithfulness, not mere belief alone which is what put´s Wilson outside of the fellowship of believers and why I publically mark him, as should all Christian men, as the dangerous heretic he is.
Click to expand...


Hogwash! And again, shame on you for slandering a brother in Christ. Wilson's theology may not be perfect (whose is?), but he is no heretic. I agree with Pastor Fred Greco on this point. Wilson clearly believes the _sola fide_ gospel of the Reformation. 

If you want to accuse Wilson of denying justification by faith alone, then prove it! Document your support for such a claim!



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which doctrine of justification? As far as his personal, salvific doctrine of justification goes, it looks like yours and mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Wilson´s credo is yours, but I reject that works play any role, autonomous or otherwise, in justification.
Click to expand...


I personally hold to what the Westminster Confession of Faith says about justification.

So do you. And so does Doug Wilson.

But answer this for me: 
Every time a Christian uses the word "justification", does he HAVE to use it in reference to our commonly held doctrine of imputation and forensic righteousness? 

If the answer is "yes", then James really goofed up! In James 2, he does NOT use the word "justified" in reference to imputed righteousness. 

Now, if you talked to James, he would have agreed perfectly with Paul in Romans 4. But James was addressing a _totally different subject_, and nevertheless believed that the use of the word "justified" was appropriate.

Wilson is doing nothing different. He agrees with the WCF on forensic justification and imputed righteousness. But he just simply happens to agree with James that we can still use the word "justification" in other contexts unrelated to imputation.




> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you given Wilson the courtesy of emailing him (or his assistant), or calling him, or writing him a letter, to find out whether or not you understand his position? Or does Matthew 18 mean nothing to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 18 means very much to me, but it is irrelevant in this case.
Click to expand...


A lot of Scripture is obviously irrelevant to you. Thanks for admitting it.

The passages in Scripture which command love of the brethren also seem to be overlooked by you.

In fact, even if Douglas Wilson IS the enemy, you have failed to obey Scripture and love your enemies! You have twisted and mischaracterized Wilson, and thus YOU are the one in opposition to the Scriptures. Even if you are totally convinced that Wilson is a heretic, you still owe him the courtesy of representing him correctly. But I guarantee you that he would NOT agree with your representation of him.

State his views in a way that HE will agree with, and THEN make your critique. Don't run off at the mouth before you understand what he has said.



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a FV guy, and I do not endorse everything Wilson says or does. But he IS our brother in Christ, and he has done and is doing many good things for the church and family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you´re very much endorsing him here. Now you´re even praising him for all the good he´s done.
Click to expand...


I very much endorse his family books, as well as his "Easy Chairs, Hard Words" book which does an excellent job of presenting Reformed soteriology.

But endorsing some of his theology is not the same as endorsing all of it. 



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, get your facts straight. Portray his position accurately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have portrayed Wilson´s position accurately and you have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise. Perhaps if you would present an argument next time instead of just emoting it might be more effective?
Click to expand...


The burden of proof is on you, not me.

You are the one raising false charges of heresy against a brother in Christ. The ball most certainly is in your court. If you want to call Wilson a heretic, then present your case. Prove it!

But if the quotes you produce are as flimsy for your argument as the ones you produced above, it won't help your case at all. Wilson has said nothing heretical. Quote away.






> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> You have provided ample evidence why RE Greco´s remarks were misguided and has, even if inadvertently, given aid and cover to Christ's enemies.



If Doug Wilson is a child of God, and a faithful Christian, then YOU are being Christ's enemy by slandering him.

Present a quote for me that demonstrates Wilson as a heretic. Let me see your data.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Stick to the issue gentlemen. The off hand remarks judging each others character are completely unnecessary to your arguments. Stick to the issue. Prove your assertions. Last warning.


----------



## biblelighthouse

Good point, Patrick.

Please forgive me.

Sean, I apologize for harshly judging your character. While I obviously disagree with your conclusions regarding Douglas Wilson, I do have to admit that your _intentions_ are good . . . I do believe you are trying to preserve the purity of the church. And for this desire you should be commended.

Anyway, please forgive me for my harsh rhetoric. I was wrong to speak to you in that manner.





[Edited on 4-4-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Magma2

> Sean, would you care to tell me what problem you have with Wilson's statements above?



I already have.



> I have read "Reformed is Not Enough". And I think Calvin or Witsius would be perfectly happy with both of the quotes you just referenced.



I suggest you read "œNot Reformed At All" for a thorough reply. As for what you think concerning Calvin and Witsius I suggest you read the piece by Robert Reymond linked above. He doesn´t share your opinion. 



> So, a regenerate person and an unregenerate person can both be in covenant with God, just as Romans 11 says, and just as the majority of the Reformed community has always said. But what is the difference between these two people? The difference is FAITH! The unregenerate person has no faith in Christ, and so the covenant is condemning for him, rather than salvific. But the regenerate person does have the gift of faith, so the covenant is salvific for him, not condemning.



God´s covenant is with the elect; "the Covenant of Grace: whereby he [God] freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe" (WCF 7.3). Notice that the promise of the Holy Spirit is to "those that are ordained unto eternal life." The promise is not to all men, nor to all who hear the Gospel, nor to all the baptized, nor to all who profess faith, but only to the elect, to "those who are ordained unto life." Notice also that the promise includes God's making the elect "willing and able to believe." Belief is not a condition that sinners meet in order to receive covenant blessings; saving faith is itself a promised blessing of the Covenant of Grace. That is exactly what God says in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 when he speaks of writing his Word in the minds of his people. 

The Larger Catechism reiterates this doctrine:Q. 31 With whom was the Covenant of Grace made? A. The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed. Notice that all the elect and only the elect in Christ are mentioned as parties in the Covenant of Grace. They, and only they, are those for whom Christ died. They, and only they, are those whom Christ represented in his life and death. The Covenant of Grace is not made with a mixed multitude of elect and reprobate, nor with the baptized, nor with all members of organized churches. 

Reprobate baptized members of the Church are not Christians and are not members of the covenant except in an external or nominal sense. This Wilson denies along with the other heretics making their claims at Auburn Avenue. 



> Per Wilson Christians are saved by their faithfulness, not by faith alone. That's the point. You need to take your blinders off.
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> 
> Prove your statement. Or am I just supposed to take your word for it? Wilson has very clearly said, repeatedly, that Christians are saved by faith ALONE. He believes in sola fide just as much as you and I do.



I have no idea what you believe. Wilson on the other hand is clear which should have been evident to all per his credo above. But since you've read his diatribe against the Reformed faith, you'll recall that according to Wilson, "both the true and false son are brought into the same relation" to Christ. So what is the determining factor that separates the sheep from the goats? Wilson 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 favorably quotes Randy Booth: "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). Read that sentence again Joseph. The imputation of Christ's righteousness is _the result of being a faithful covenant member._ Wilson immediately adds, "This is fundamental to the central point of this book. Election is one thing and covenant membership is another." 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). 

I can see you didn´t get the point of his book.


----------



## Magma2

I forgive you Joseph. I know you think I have wrongly accused Wilson of teaching a false gospel, but the evidence against him is irrefutable. It is Wilson who is in real need of repentance. Yet, in spite of the mounting evidence against him he grows more and more resolute and determined in the face of his many critics. You must agree that Wilson is in fundamental agreement with FV and the Auburn Avenue theology and has continued to further their collective agenda as one of their chief and most capable defenders. That´s why you should seriously and prayerfully consider this change of heart from Calvin Beisner:



> Had I written my conclusion five months later than I did, it would have been much more decisively and comprehensively critical of the Federal Visionists than what was published. Over that period, thousands of e-mails among the contributors served to persuade me that the Federal Visionists really meant some of the worst things I´d feared, not what I´d hoped, by many of their ambiguous public statements. I became thoroughly convinced that what they are offering is a wholesale replacement of Westminsterian soteriology, ecclesiology, and sacramentology with a soteriology that is a hybrid of Amyraldianism and Roman Catholicism, an ecclesiology that leans heavily toward Roman Catholicism, and a sacramentology that also is far more Roman Catholic than Protestant. My reading of their statements in the time since then convinces me likewise even more strongly. One cannot consistently maintain the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and yet affirm some of the definitive elements of what has come to be known as the Federal Vision or Auburn Avenue Theology. That some manage inconsistently to maintain both is a testimony to their intellectual inabilities, not to the orthodoxy of the FV/AAT [.http://www.upsaid.com/scarecrow/index.php?action=viewcom&id=548]



If you really believe that salvation is by belief alone - plus nothing, you need to see that Wilson does not and that while he wraps himself in the Reformed Confessions he twists their meaning to fit his anti-Christian paradigm.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> The Covenant of Grace is not made with a mixed multitude of elect and reprobate, nor with the baptized, nor with all members of organized churches.



You are free to believe this, just as many Reformed Baptists do. But this is not the historic Reformed position. Neither older (Witsius) Reformed nor newer (McMahon) Reformed would agree with you. Just look at Dr. Matthew McMahon's chart on Covenant Theology. He says:

"Believers and Unbelievers included in the Old Testament administrations of the Covenant of Grace . . . . men like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Moses, Korah, Saul, David, and Solomon in covenant with God. They will prove themselves to be covenant keepers or covenant breakers. Only the regenerate are able to keep covenant with God although all are required to obey."

Amen! And if anybody today is in tune with historic Reformed (especially Puritan) theology, it is Dr. C. Matthew McMahon!

Sean, you keep missing the point that it is *impossible* to be a covenant *breaker* without first being a covenant *member*. 



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Reprobate baptized members of the Church are not Christians and are not members of the covenant except in an external or nominal sense. This Wilson denies along with the other heretics making their claims at Auburn Avenue.



If you mandate a certain definition for the word "Christian", then Douglas Wilson would agree with you 100%. He believes that there is a relationship between God and the regenerate which is *never* shared between God and the unregenerate. He understands Matthew 7:23 just fine.

The problem is that you *refuse* to let him define himself. He doesn't use the word "Christian" the same way you do, so please quit trying to act as if he does! You define "Christian" as "regenerate". But Wilson does not. If we define "Christian" as meaning "covenant member", then there is _absolutely nothing wrong_ with Wilson's statement that there are unregenerate Christians! In other words, there is nothing wrong with saying that there are unregenerate covenant members. If I adhere to Wilson's usage of the word "Christian", then there is nothing wrong with me saying that "Judas was a Christian". There would be nothing wrong with me saying that "Esau was a Christian". Like I pointed out earlier, Dr. McMahon himself wrote right on his Covenant Theology chart that Esau was a member of the covenant of grace. Thus, if he were to use Wilson's particular definition for the word "Christian", then he could rightfully say that "Esau was a Christian". --- The whole problem here is that you are quibbling over semantics rather than substance. You get in a tizzy because Wilson uses the word "Christian" in a way that you don't like to use it. But what is the *substance* of what he is saying? He is simply saying that there are both regenerate and unregenerate covenant members. Period. That's it. And whether you agree with that statement or not, you have to admit that a large number of Covenant Theologians, both past and present, would totally agree with that statement. There is nothing heretical about it. Please quit acting as if Wilson was using *your* definitions for words!





> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Per Wilson Christians are saved by their faithfulness, not by faith alone. That's the point. You need to take your blinders off.
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> 
> Prove your statement. Or am I just supposed to take your word for it? Wilson has very clearly said, repeatedly, that Christians are saved by faith ALONE. He believes in sola fide just as much as you and I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson on the other hand is clear which should have been evident to all per his credo above. But since you've read his diatribe against the Reformed faith, you'll recall that according to Wilson, "both the true and false son are brought into the same relation" to Christ. So what is the determining factor that separates the sheep from the goats? Wilson 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].
Click to expand...


Thank you for pointing out specific quotes. Let's deal with a few things in order:

1) "faith in the biblical sense is inseparable from faithfulness"

Amen! That is precisely what is taught by every Reformed theologian I know. You have heard the oft-repeated phrase, "Justification is by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone". Amen to that! Do you think that a person can have true faith in Christ, and yet never bear fruit? Do you think that a person can receive justification, and yet never receive sanctification. You see, true faith and true faithfulness ARE inseparable. They are inseparable, but they are not _identical_. And I think this may be where you are misinterpreting Douglas Wilson. He is not saying that faith = works. Rather, he is simply saying that works are inseparable from faith, and will always flow from true faith. 

2) "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"_"

Sean, you put part of this phrase in italics because you are trying to point out what you think is a heresy. If I understand you correctly, you think it is horrible that Wilson says that God has set a "condition" for the fulfillment of His promise. Am I correct that this is what bothers you?

Well, let's ask the question: Is there any "condition" on our part, in order to receive salvation? You bet your boots there is a condition! But WHAT is that condition? Is it works (Pelagianism), faith plus works (Catholicism / Arminianism), or is it faith alone (Reformed)? Of course we know the answer is "faith alone". Faith is the *only* condition on our part. (And even that condition is met by God Himself, for He gives us faith as a gift.)

Sean, the problem is that you are selectively quoting Wilson. For what I just said is what Wilson himself said in the _very next sentence_ after the quotation you gave. Immediately after speaking about the "condition" of receiving God's promises, Wilson proceeds to tell us exactly what that condition is:

"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. Can we *fulfill our covenant responsibilities (by believing)* and yet have God fail to fulfill His promise? It is not possible."

Pay close attention to what Wilson said. How do we "fulfill our covenant responsibilities"? We fulfill them "by believing"! In other words, if we have faith, then by that faith alone we have fulfilled our covenant responsibilities, and God will fulfill His covenant promise to us. This is _sola fide_, pure and simple!

And earlier on page 186, Wilson is even clearer:

"I have argued that promises are apprehended by _faith_, *not faithfulness or fidelity* . . ."

How much more clearly does he have to say it? He obviously believes that the promises are fulfilled on the basis of faith alone, NOT on the basis of faithfulness. But this is another example of your selective quoting. You left off this first half of the sentence, and only quoted the second part, which correctly points out that "faith . . . is inseparable from faithfulness". And I already responded to this point above. Faith *is* inseparable from faithfulness. However, faith is most certainly NOT *identical* to faithfulness. The head of a penny is not the tail of a penny, and the tail of a penny is not the head of a penny. Nevertheless, they are quite inseparable. Likewise, justification and santification are not each other. But they are most certainly inseparable. You cannot get one without also getting the other. Faith and works are not each other, but they are inseparable. You cannot have one without also having the other. Nevertheless, we all agree that our justification is based on the faith, not on the faithfulness. This is the classic Reformed distinction, and Wilson upholds it quite explicitly.




> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Wilson favorably quotes Randy Booth: "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). Read that sentence again Joseph. The imputation of Christ's righteousness is _the result of being a faithful covenant member._



The answer to your objection is contained in the very quote you are using! In the context of the sentence you quoted, who exactly does Wilson say is "faithful"? He explicitly says that the faithful are "those *full of faith in the Savior*". So Wilson is saying that only those with faith in the Savior receive imputed righteousness. Amen to that! That is what _every_ Reformed person believes, including yourself! 

Let's think about the parable of the sheep and the goats for a moment. Is anything said in that parable about faith? No. The good works of the sheep are pointed out, and then they are ushered into Heaven. The evil works of the goats are pointed out, and then they are ushered into Hell. Some people falsely interpret this parable as teaching some sort of works salvation, but Wilson is not one of them. It is true that those with good works are sent to Heaven, and those with evil works are sent to hell. However, every good Reformed exegete recognizes that the good/evil works serve as a *barometer*, not as a *grounds*. In other words, the works a person does demonstrate whether or not he/she has *faith*. The sheep are NOT rewarded on the grounds of their good works. They are rewarded on the grounds of Christ's imputed righteousness, which is only granted on the basis of faith alone, not faith plus works. However, these good works DO demonstrate the fact that the sheep have true faith. --- It is kind of like me saying that "I don't want to go outside because the thermometer is red all the way to the top." My statement is a true statement. But does the _ultimate_ reason I want to stay inside have anything to do with the thermometer color? Of course not. My *grounds* for not going outside are because it is very *hot* outside. Whether I had a thermometer or not, the heat is the actual thing that would keep me indoors. --- Likewise, good works are a "thermometer" in the parable of the sheep and goats. Jesus can point out the sheep's good works, and then validly tell them "welcome home". But the works are no more the grounds of their welcome than the thermometer is the grounds of my staying indoors. Rather, Jesus welcomes them home on the grounds of His imputed righteousness which He gave to them via their faith alone. --- Wilson is saying nothing more than this. It is TRUE that only the faithful receive the imputed righteousness of Christ. But WHY do they receive the imputed righteousness of Christ? They do not receive it BECAUSE of their faithfulness. Rather, they receive it BECAUSE they are "full of faith in the Savior", just as Wilson explicitly says.

In short, just because Wilson says one thing (imputed righteousness) is only given to one group (the faithful), that does NOT mean that the imputation is given on the *grounds* of their faithfulness. Wilson is doing nothing more than restating the classic phrase: "Justification is by faith alone, _but not by the faith that is alone_." He *never* claims that the *grounds* of imputation are in works of any kind. 




> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> I can see you didn´t get the point of his book.



Right back at ya.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> I forgive you Joseph.



Thank you Sean. Your graciousness is much appreciated. My fervor is directed towards this discussion itself, and not towards you personally. I respect you, and I respect your intentions.



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> If you really believe that salvation is by belief alone - plus nothing, you need to see that Wilson does not and that while he wraps himself in the Reformed Confessions he twists their meaning to fit his anti-Christian paradigm.



With all of my heart, with every fiber of my being, I believe that salvation is by belief alone. Justification and Sanctification should never be confused with one another. (That is one case in which we should all *not* follow dear old Augustine!) 

Where I disagree with you is regarding Douglas Wilson and the FV in general. I do not think they disagree with you and me and the WCF on this critical point. I truly do believe they are being misunderstood. I think some of the fault is theirs. Some of them (especially Wilkins) could afford to be clearer in their presentation of what they believe. But on the other hand, I think a lot of blame belongs in the TR camp. Many Reformed theologians have been VERY uncharitable and uncareful in their readings of Wilson et al. The mistakes you have made in understanding Wilson's writings are the same mistakes I see numerous others making frequently. And it deeply saddens me. I truly believe a number of people have already staunchly made up their minds, and are now "heresy hunters", just looking for any way possible to discredit Wilson, Wilkins, Jordan, etc. And apparently people think it is OK to use selective quotations to make it appear as if these men said things that are diametrically opposed to their actual beliefs, to the actual context of the writings from which such quotes are taken. The intentions may be good, initially. But the result is slander, nonetheless, even if it is unintentional slander. And unintentional slander hurts the reputations of good Christian men.

If Douglas Wilson ever denies justification by faith alone, I will be on the front lines, right beside you, shooting at him with theological darts. But I have never seen Wilson deny _sola fide_. So far, all I have seen is a bunch of quotations taken out of context, twisted, trying to peg Wilson with beliefs that he doesn't even hold.


I repeat what I said earlier: 
Until a person can articulate his opponent's view in such a way that the *opponent* will agree with it, he has not yet properly understood his opponent's view, and therefore has no business critiquing it.


I *beg* you to back off just long enough to engage Douglas Wilson *personally*. Email Wilson and/or his personal assistant. Clearly tell him where you think he is heretical, and give him an opportunity to respond directly and personally to your questions. That is the truly Christian approach. And if you take the time to dialogue with him, I think you will find that his view on salvation is NOT different from yours. He just articulates himself using lingo and definitions that you aren't comfortable with. Maybe he is unwise to use such lingo and such definitions. Maybe not. But even if he is totally wrong to use his lingo and definitions, the fact remains that the *content* of his teaching on salvation is *no different* from that of the WCF.

And if ANYONE deviates from the WCF on salvation, you'd better believe that I will be the first one to cry foul!

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph

[Edited on 4-4-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## kceaster

One thing to bear in mind: When we talk about relationship, we look at it from both sides, being still trapped in this sinful human mind. We would no doubt agree that there are those who are in relationship to God through His church, just as we would say we are.

But the all important distinction made in justification is that the relationship is from God's side. What is the misery of that estate? All mankind, by their fall, lost communion with God, are under His wrath and curse... In justification, those sinners _gain_ communion with God. And how is it that communion with God is gained? Not because man wants a relationship from his side, but because God institutes or decrees a relationship from His side. The FV denies this because they see the covenant as a two-way street. It is not a two-way street.

The elect have a relationship to God only through their mediator Christ, whose perfect obedience has extended to them, which they receive by faith alone, His righteousness, by which they are justified. The relationship is all one sided.

Matthew 7:21-23 spells this out rather succinctly. There will be those who clearly have a relationship to Christ by virtue of their being in the church and even in the ministry. So, why are they cast out? Because they didn't work hard enough? Because their hearts weren't in the right place? No. They are cast out because Christ did not have a relationship with them. They are under God's wrath and curse. That relationship only comes by Christ through the Holy Spirit because there is a chasm between God and man that only God can cross.

So we need to be careful when we talk about relationship. Our day is filled with the incorrect assumption that we can have a personal relationship with God. I think it is quite the other way around. God can have a personal relationship with us. And the way that relationship is fostered is only by the mediatorial relationship Christ has to the covenant, the faith He gives us as a gift by His grace, and His justifying the sinner by His perfect obedience through that faith and nothing else.

Many in our world want to have a relationship to God. But only the elect truly do. To the rest He will say, "Depart from me you workers of inquity. *I never knew you*."

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Magma2

> You are free to believe this, just as many Reformed Baptists do. But this is not the historic Reformed position. Neither older (Witsius) Reformed nor newer (McMahon) Reformed would agree with you. Just look at Dr. Matthew McMahon's chart on Covenant Theology. He says:
> 
> "Believers and Unbelievers included in the Old Testament administrations of the Covenant of Grace . . . . men like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Moses, Korah, Saul, David, and Solomon in covenant with God. They will prove themselves to be covenant keepers or covenant breakers. Only the regenerate are able to keep covenant with God although all are required to obey."
> 
> Amen! And if anybody today is in tune with historic Reformed (especially Puritan) theology, it is Dr. C. Matthew McMahon!
> 
> Sean, you keep missing the point that it is *impossible* to be a covenant breaker without first being a covenant member.




You will not find any support in the WCF, LC or SC for the idea that God´s Covenant is with reprobate members of the church. God´s Covenant is with the elect alone. This may not be the position of a lot of P&R men these days, but it is the position of the WCF and it is biblical. Further, as you might recall, it turned out that Dr. McMahon and I are closer on our understanding of the Covenant than you might hope. You might also recall Fred Greco´s remarks to you as well which I wholeheartedly agreed with:



> The outward administration is not substantive - it is dross that burns away. The non-elect are like guests at the wedding feast who do not have wedding clothes, and that shows that they never belonged there in the first place. or like the thief who climbs over the wall instead of going through the gate. Just because one thinks that one is in relationship with God does not mean that he is.



Now compare this with Wilson´s covenant where even the reprobate are, in your words, "œfull fledged covenant members." In Wilson´s covenant magic baptism is always efficacious in bringing men into union with Christ. Along with the rejection of the idea of the Church invisible, which cannot be photographed, in Wilson´s theology there is no logical connection between the doctrine of election and the covenant. This is a _rejection_ of the Reformed doctrine of the Covenant even if you can´t see it. That´s because, per Wilson, all who are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are initiated into a "œhistoric, objective and visible covenant relationship": 



> This consecration really happens. God really does it. His people are genuinely set apart; a visible difference is placed between them and the world. By means of baptism, baptism by_ water,_ grace and salvation is conferred on the elect (107 "“ emphasis in the original).



This puts Wilson in a uncomfortable position, because even he recognizes the absurdity of the sacramentalist understanding of baptismal regeneration:



> Of course there are baptized covenant members who are not individually regenerate. They are the ones who reject what God is offering to them in their baptism. They therefore fall away from the _covenant_ and not from election . . . . (104 "“ emphasis in the original).




It should be obvious that Wilson has adopted the error of the so-called "œWell Meant Offer" and confined it to all baptized members of the church. For Wilson the elect are not simply those who are actually regenerate or born again, but are all those who have ever been baptized. Or, as John Barach proclaimed at the Auburn Conference in his lecture, Covenant and Election; "œWho are the elect? This is as visible and obvious as your church membership roll . . . ." In Auburn Avenue theology what makes a person a Christian are not the propositions believed, it is the water of baptism. Becoming a Christian is the result of being photographed at the baptismal font. Through the water of baptism God bestows "œgrace and salvation" even on those who are ultimately lost. Salvation is something that takes place within this "œcovenant relationship" lived by those "œelected" into the covenant via the water of baptism and who persevere until the end, i.e., the "œspecially elect." Further, since grace is offered to all those who are baptized, conversion becomes the "œapplied grace of their baptism." 

Per Wilson, God imposes obligations on us in baptism and it´s how we live that decides our salvation. Wilson repeatedly tells us in his book this relationship is much like an unfaithful husband who, even while mired in infidelity, still has "œall the obligations of marriage." Like being a faithful and dutiful spouse, we must do our part. Salvation is not the result of Christ´s work completely alone and apart from us, but is something worked in us "œcorporately" as we persevere and live out our lives in covenantal faithfulness. For Wilson, believing is doing and Christians are saved by fulfilling conditions of the covenant:



> In the historic Protestant view, good works are inseparable from biblical salvation. They are not a condiment to flavor a "˜raw´ justification, but rather are definitionally related to justification . . . like the terms husband and wife (173 "“ emphasis in the original).



Good works and justification are reciprocals. Justification is not the cause or ground of sanctification and good works, but the equivalent. In Wilson´s anti-covenant soteriology, the good news of salvation by mere belief alone is rejected in favor of "œcovenantal faithfulness." After all, and read this closely Joseph, Wilson argues, "œNo one assumes that every husband will automatically have a successful marriage. Nor should we assume that every Christian will go to Heaven." According to Wilson´s antichristian theology some Christians go to Hell. For Wilson the covenant is conditional and it´s through faith that we are enabled to meet these conditions.

Wilson´s scheme and his credo is completely anti-Christian. It is a clever counterfeit that you have bought hook-line-and-sinker. 




> The problem is that you *refuse* to let him define himself. He doesn't use the word "Christian" the same way you do, so please quit trying to act as if he does! You define "Christian" as "regenerate". But Wilson does not. If we define "Christian" as meaning "covenant member", then there is absolutely nothing wrong with Wilson's statement that there are unregenerate Christians!



Yes, there is something very wrong with Wilson´s definition of what makes a man a Christian. That should be obvious from what I´ve supplied above. If you can´t see that, then I am very concerned for your soul Joseph. 




> In other words, there is nothing wrong with saying that there are unregenerate covenant members. If I adhere to Wilson's usage of the word "Christian", then there is nothing wrong with me saying that "Judas was a Christian". There would be nothing wrong with me saying that "Esau was a Christian". Like I pointed out earlier, Dr. McMahon himself wrote right on his Covenant Theology chart that Esau was a member of the covenant of grace.




The confessional standards of the church that I am currently a member is supposed to be the WCF, not the writings and opinions of Dr. McMahon. Also, at least from my earlier exchange with Dr. McMahon on this subject, it appears that he too is in agreement with what Fred Greco says above and that non-elect are only members in the sense of being under the *outward administration* of the CoG. Therefore, Judas was NOT a Christian in any sense. That is one of the most absurd statements I have almost ever read.



> 1) "faith in the biblical sense is inseparable from faithfulness"
> 
> Amen! That is precisely what is taught by every Reformed theologian I know.



Prove it Joseph. No Reformed theologian that I have ever read has ever equated and confused faithfulness with faith. Of course, I don´t consider Wilson and his ilk Reformed theologians, rather they are nicely disguised wolves. 



> If I understand you correctly, you think it is horrible that Wilson says that God has set a "condition" for the fulfillment of His promise. Am I correct that this is what bothers you?
> 
> Well, let's ask the question: Is there any "condition" on our part, in order to receive salvation?
> 
> You bet your boots there is a condition! But WHAT is that condition? Is it works (Pelagianism), faith plus works (Catholicism / Arminianism), or is it faith alone (Reformed)? Of course we know the answer is "faith alone". Faith is the *only* condition on our part. (And even that condition is met by God Himself, for He gives us faith as a gift.)



While Gordon Clark has provided a much needed corrective to the traditional and grossly deficient "œtraditional" definition of saving faith, the problem with Wilson is that he denies that salvation is by mere belief alone. This goes back to his equating faith with faithfulness, something you agree with and applaud. Wilson denies that one is saved by believing the message of the Gospel alone, apart from anything we do as he made clear in his interview with Christian Renewal when asked if salvation is by faith alone, Wilson replied; "Not bare bones faith. Not assent. Devils have that. True faith is more than assent.... we say faith cannot be separated from trust and obedience, and...we say saving faith cannot be separated from a life of obedience and trust."

Notice faith = obedience and an obedient faith is a doing faith. Believing is doing. You agree with that don´t you Joseph? The WCF defines justification as occurring completely apart from any "œevangelical obedience" whatsoever. Not so for Wilson . . . and evidently not you either.



> Sean, the problem is that you are selectively quoting Wilson. For what I just said is what Wilson himself said in the very next sentence after the quotation you gave. Immediately after speaking about the "condition" of receiving God's promises, Wilson proceeds to tell us exactly what that condition is:
> 
> "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. Can we fulfill our covenant responsibilities (by believing) and yet have God fail to fulfill His promise? It is not possible."
> 
> Pay close attention to what Wilson said. How do we "fulfill our covenant responsibilities"? We fulfill them "by believing"! In other words, if we have faith, then by that faith alone we have fulfilled our covenant responsibilities, and God will fulfill His covenant promise to us. This is sola fide, pure and simple!




Perhaps that is sola fide in your mind, but not in mine or in the mind of the writers of the WCF. But thank you for that additional citation since it again highlights Wilson´s heresy. Works done by faith are necessary conditions for salvation. Nothing could be clearer. Thanks Joseph. Salvation is conditioned upon OUR fulfilling OUR covenant responsibilities and this, in your mind, is sola fide! Amazing.



> Faith and works are not each other, but they are inseparable. You cannot have one without also having the other. Nevertheless, we all agree that our justification is based on the faith, not on the faithfulness. This is the classic Reformed distinction, and Wilson upholds it quite explicitly.



Wilson confounds the two. That´s the point. His view of salvation is substantively no different from any modern Roman Catholic. I suggest you spend some time on Catholic boards discussing the RC doctrine of salvation. You might find you have a lot in common. They too deny that a man is justified by merely believing the Gospel, but rather a "œfully formed faith" is what saves a man. Like Wilson they believe saving faith is an obedient faith; it´s a faith that works. 

I´ll have to take up your misunderstanding of the parable of the sheep and the goats at a later time, God willing. In the meantime, I recommend you read Dr. Robbins´ piece, Justification and Judgment, at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=117 . In the piece he examines the role of works as evidence in light of Mat. 7:21-23. I think you need to read it. If nothing else it should demonstrate how far apart you and I really are.



> If Douglas Wilson ever denies justification by faith alone, I will be on the front lines, right beside you, shooting at him with theological darts. But I have never seen Wilson deny sola fide. So far, all I have seen is a bunch of quotations taken out of context, twisted, trying to peg Wilson with beliefs that he doesn't even hold.




Joseph, while I admit it would be helpful for you if Wilson were just to come out and say; "œI deny justification by belief alone." He´s too clever for that and For what it's worth I don´t consider him an idiot. However, he has expressed his denial of JBFA in many different ways and on many different occasions. Some men have been willing to excuse Wilson as a confused and contradictory man who really doesn´t know what he is saying. However, like Beisner above, too many are coming to the realization that these men mean exactly what they say and it is their intent to confuse. Unfortunately, the time for surgery has passed and these men missed their chance. The cancer has long since metastized, which, I suppose, is why we're having this discussion.


----------



## Magma2

I want to comment a little more on the equivalence in Wilson and Joseph of faith and faithfulness. Websters defines faithful as:

1 obsolete : full of faith
2 : steadfast in affection or allegiance : LOYAL
3 : firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty : CONSCIENTIOUS
4 : given with strong assurance : BINDING <faithful promise>
5 : true to the facts, to a standard, or to an original 

I had cited Wilson´s endorsement of Randy Booth who said; "Only faithful covenant membership (i.e., those full of faith in the Savior), receive the covenant blessings, including the blessings of imputed righteousness." Joseph objects that "œWilson is saying that only those with faith in the Savior receive imputed righteousness." So it would seem that for Wilson faithful really does not mean faithful in the sense of definitions 2 through 5. As born sinners we are not steadfast in affection or allegiance; we do not firmly adhere to promises we make or in observance of our duty; we can find no basis for assurance in ourselves; and we are not prone to being true to any standard, much less to Christ who we call our Lord. Only the obsolete usage of faithfulness is left. 

But look again at Booth´s statement; "œonly faithful covenant membership (i.e., those full of faith in the Savior), receive the covenant blessings, including the blessings of imputed righteousness." It is OUR faithful covenant membership that enables us to receive the blessings of the covenant, including the imputation of Christ´s righteousness. Wilson has already told us that some Christians who are unfaithful to the conditions of the covenant and go to Hell. Wilson has already recast justification as an eschatological category. Wilson has already compared the covenant with a marriage where as faithful husbands we must be true to our vows to our wives if we´re to be justified in our claims of being good husbands. In Wilson´s conditional covenant we all must do our part if we can ever hope to obtain our "œfinal justification" and all the blessings of the covenant, including imputation. 

Wilson has already told us that both elect and non-elect members of the covenant are "œfull fledged" members of the CoG. Wilson has already told us that by "œmeans of baptism, baptism by water, grace and salvation is conferred on the elect." However, before nodding in agreement, we must also remember that in Wilson´s reworking of the covenant, not only should the church be thought of in terms of "œhistoric and eschatological," but election should be thought of in these terms too, as is evident from Wilson´s quote of Joel Garver´s "œA Brief Catechesis on Covenant and Baptism":



> . . . it is precisely in our _"˜covenantal´ election that "˜special´ election is realized_ and made known. Thus we should not drive a wedge between "˜special´ and "˜covenantal elections, for special election simply is covenantal election for those, who by God´s sovereign electing grace, persevere. For those who fall away, covenantal _election devolves into reprobation_ (139 "“ emphasis mine).



Election becomes reprobation. Election and reprobation are no longer eternal realities which God has determined before the foundation of the world, they are states which men enter by their actions: baptism and "œcovenant faithfulness." 

Wilson has already told us that "œpropositions without works are dead "“ even if the propositions are true." Wilson in his arrogance disagrees with Jesus Christ who said that even the very words He spoke were "œspirit and they are life" and those who believe His words, doctrines, propositions "“ apart from any work wrought in them or done by them "“ have "œpassed out of death into life." Therefore, and for many more reasons, one cannot logically arrive at any other conclusion other than Wilson intends to apply any combination of definitions 2 through 5 as necessary components for what he means by faithful covenant membership. He intentionally confuses and confounds justification with sanctification, and like his fellow brothers from Rome, ends up with neither. Unless he repents Wilson will go to Hell along with all those so eager to follow him.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

As Dr. Clark has said, the FV makes Baptism into Law, not Gospel. Baptism becomes a grace which WE must COOPERATE with and AID in order to see the grace succeed. As for Justification, every FV advocate I have read states that when one is baptized into the covenant, they are "full fledged" members of the Covenant of Grace, and have received "all the benefits of Christ" ... except for perseverance of course. That is now, according to the FV, our responsibility. When you abandon the distinction between legal and communal membership within the Covenant, you abandon Reformed theology, and you abandon the Gospel of God's Grace towards sinners.


----------



## biblelighthouse

Sean,

You are clearly revealing your utter unwillingness to pay attention. You have little charity for your Christian brothers. Instead of simply trying to understand what is being spoken to you, you seek for any way you can to stretch & twist the words of others, or even to tell outright lies.

Since you are not open to either Scripture or logic, I won't waste my time unwinding all of your sophistry in your post. However, I will point out one very blatant error you made which is appalling. 

I said, "true faith and true faithfulness ARE inseparable. They are inseparable, *but they are not identical*. And I think this may be where you are misinterpreting Douglas Wilson. *He is not saying that faith = works*. Rather, he is simply saying that works are inseparable from faith, and will always flow from true faith." 

And then, incredibly, you responded:




> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Prove it Joseph. No Reformed theologian that I have ever read has ever equated and *confused faithfulness with faith*. . . . the problem with Wilson is that he denies that salvation is by mere belief alone. This goes back to his *equating faith with faithfulness*, something you agree with and applaud. Wilson denies that one is saved by believing the message of the Gospel alone . . .
> 
> Notice *faith = obedience* and an obedient faith is a doing faith. Believing is doing. You agree with that don´t you Joseph?



No, I most certainly do NOT agree with that. But apparently you don't even take the time to read my posts. I EXPLICITLY said that faith and works are "not identical", and that Wilson is NOT saying that faith = works. What part of "NO" don't you understand?

This is how our conversation is going:


*Sean*: I hate Wilson because he thinks faith and works are the same thing.
*Joseph*: No, Wilson doesn't believe that. Wilson and I both agree that faith and works are NOT identical, and are NOT the same thing.
*Sean*: You believe that faith and works are the same thing? You think faith and works are equated? You are a heretic!


Your lack of attention is staggering. It would be one thing if you merely misunderstood some fine point of my argument. But when you blatantly claim that I said something directly OPPOSITE of what I said, your actions border on slander.


And I repeat --- on page 186, Wilson is even clearer:

"I have argued that promises are apprehended by faith, *not faithfulness or fidelity* . . ."



Sean, what part of "not" don't you understand? You sound like a broken record. Try READING my posts for a change, and actually responding to them, instead of responding to the imaginary evil straw-man in your head.



LET ME BE VERY CLEAR:

1) FAITH AND FAITHFULNESS ARE *NOT* TO BE EQUATED. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. THEY ARE DISTINCT.

2) SALVATION IS BY FAITH ALONE, *NOT* FAITH PLUS FAITHFULNESS.


Is that clear enough for you, Sean? Or is the word "not" still too hard for you to see in my posts?

[Edited on 4-4-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> As Dr. Clark has said, the FV makes Baptism into Law, not Gospel. Baptism becomes a grace which WE must COOPERATE with and AID in order to see the grace succeed.



I have never seen any FV person claim that.

The only "cooperation" we have to give is FAITH. That's it. And even that faith is a gift from God. So while the "cooperation" of our faith is required, we cannot even take credit for that.

Do you believe a person must respond to God in faith, or not? If your answer is "yes", then you agree that faith is a condition. That is ALL they are saying, nothing more, nothing less. This is _sola fide_, pure and simple. The ONLY "cooperation" Wilson is talking about is FAITH, not FAITHFULNESS. And even he would agree that the faith itself is a gift from God.





> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> As for Justification, every FV advocate I have read states that when one is baptized into the covenant, they are "full fledged" members of the Covenant of Grace, and have received "all the benefits of Christ" ... except for perseverance of course.



Not one FV person teaches this, as far as I know. 

They teach that all the benefits of Christ are there for the taking, but they can ONLY be apprehended by FAITH ALONE. So just because they say that all the benefits of Christ are offered, does NOT mean they believe that every covenant member actually POSESSES them ontologically.

And you are totally wrong to suggest that they teach such a thing about perseverance. They do not! They do NOT teach that the only difference between covenant members is a matter of "perseverance" (i.e. duration in the covenant). You may be able to find some quotes where they say that perseverance is *one* important difference between the two groups, but it certainly is not the *only* difference:

Just for example, the AAPC summary statement says that the difference between those who persevere and those who do not is *"not to be reduced to the time of their duration in the covenant"*. Indeed, employing this very point, it goes on to say, *"œGod does work "˜effectually´ in those whom He has predestined to eternal life so that they do not fall away in unbelief.* In this sense, we may say that *there are things which are true of the "˜elect´ which are never true of the reprobate.* But these distinctions"¦are impossible to recognize at the beginnings of one´s Christian experience within the visible church."




In other words, there ARE ontological differences between elect covenant members and non-elect covenant members. All they are saying is that the differences are something we cannot visibly see to begin with. And that is right in line with 1 John 2:19.


You see, Gabriel, I would agree with you in pointing the finger at them if they believed the things you say they believe. But you are simply incorrect.

Their theology may be formulated in an odd way, and you and I can disagree with it all we like. But neither of us has any right to make the rash accusation that they have somehow denied the Gospel! They may be in a different camp, but they are certainly not as far away from us as you think! They AGREE that salvation is by faith ALONE. And they AGREE that there is a real ontological difference between elect covenant members and reprobate covenant members.




[Edited on 4-4-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## AdamM

> Sean,
> 
> You are clearly revealing your utter unwillingness to pay attention. You have little charity for your Christian brothers. Instead of simply trying to understand what is being spoken to you, you seek for any way you can to stretch & twist the words of others, or even to tell outright lies.
> 
> Since you are not open to either Scripture or logic, I won't waste my time unwinding all of your sophistry in your post. However, I will point out one very blatant error you made which is appalling.



Joseph, I think one could assume by the harsh tone of your response, that the demand for charity toward Christian brothers is sort of one way street.


----------



## Arch2k

Everyone:

This topic is of great importance, especially in our day and age. I have enjoyed the back and forth, and I am especially interested in studying this issue. Of course I have my opinions, but for now, am just watching, but remember so are others.

[Moderator hat] 
That being said, personal attacks do not help in this debate, but rather detract from the issues at hand. The debate is not about who is or is not lying, for obviously only one side can be right. Instead, please concentrate on the issues or the thread will be closed.
[/Moderator hat]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> Sean,
> 
> You are clearly revealing your utter unwillingness to pay attention. You have little charity for your Christian brothers. Instead of simply trying to understand what is being spoken to you, you seek for any way you can to stretch & twist the words of others, or even to tell outright lies.
> 
> Since you are not open to either Scripture or logic, I won't waste my time unwinding all of your sophistry in your post. However, I will point out one very blatant error you made which is appalling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph, I think one could assume by the harsh tone of your response, that the demand for charity toward Christian brothers is sort of one way street.
Click to expand...



Adam,

My call for charity regards the matter of whether we call a person a "brother in Christ", or whether we call him a "heretic". We should exercise EXTREME charity in this regard, and should exercise MUCH charity and care before using the "h" word". 

But I have not called Sean a heretic. Far from it! I have no doubt that he trusts in Christ for his salvation. Rather, he has essentially done that _to me_. By publically assuming that I equate faith with faithfulness, he is trying to suggest that I have denied the Gospel. So my harsh reply was quite appropriate . . . _especially_ since I had made it *abundantly clear in my previous posts* that I reject the idea that faith & faithfulness are identical.

When I clearly state something, and then someone else blatantly says that I said the opposite, you had better believe I will reply in no uncertain terms. In spite of my clear posts, Sean said that I believed the very opposite of what I had actually said. And those are fighting words! 

I do not take it lightly when someone suggests that I have denied the Gospel!




> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Everyone:
> 
> This topic is of great importance, especially in our day and age. I have enjoyed the back and forth, and I am especially interested in studying this issue. Of course I have my opinions, but for now, am just watching, but remember so are others.
> 
> [Moderator hat]
> That being said, personal attacks do not help in this debate, but rather detract from the issues at hand. The debate is not about who is or is not lying, for obviously only one side can be right. Instead, please concentrate on the issues or the thread will be closed.
> [/Moderator hat]



Jeff, please see my comments to Adam above. I am surprised that you are directing your moderator comments to me, rather than to Sean. 


I am more than happy to discuss the issues with a cool head. But if anyone wants to deny my clear statements that I *reject* the equation of "faith" with "faithfulness", then he will get my feathers in a ruffle. And I will respond accordingly. If he doesn't like this, then simply don't accuse me of things I clearly say I don't believe!


Now . . . let's get back to the discussion . . .

I would like for Sean, or anyone else, respond to what I pointed out above. For example, please respond to Doug Wilson's statement on page 186 of his book, where *he explicitly denies* that God's promises are apprehended by anything other than faith alone, NOT faithfulness. 

In other words, on page 186, Wilson explicitly affirms _sola fide_.



[Edited on 4-5-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Jeff, please see my comments to Adam above. I am surprised that you are directing your moderator comments to me, rather than to Sean.



Just for clarification, my comments were directed to anyone involved in this conversation, not just to you Joseph.


----------



## Magma2

> And you are totally wrong to suggest that they teach such a thing about perseverance. They do not! They do NOT teach that the only difference between covenant members is a matter of "perseverance" (i.e. duration in the covenant).



Joseph, I´m not going to comment on a number of things you wrote since I believe your mind is closed to any criticism leveled against Wilson and the rest of his fellow Neo-Legalists. However, you are wrong, Wilson and the rest of his ilk deny the doctrine of perseverance since, as I´ve already shown you, Wilson says some Christians go to Hell. In addition, Joel Garver who Wilson quotes favorably also said this:



> . . . election is only revealed in and through the covenant. The covenant people are the elect people of God in Christ, the Elect One of God. Sadly, many of those who are among the elect people will turn out to be reprobate through apostasy. Nonetheless, God's purposes stand as he gathers his elect people in and through the covenant. Those who persevere in faith have no one to thank but God in his free and sovereign electing love poured out--salvation is by grace alone. Those who apostatize have no one to blame but themselves for having squandered God's good gifts . . . . If someone is in Christ by baptism--united to the Head as a member of the Body--then, that person is elect. If that person apostatizes and no longer abides in Christ (like the branches in John 15), he is no longer elect in Christ, but is reprobate, should he never repent and return._ Whatever time we abide in Christ is a manifestation of God's electing love for us and faithfulness to us _(http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/cateches.htm "“ emphasis mine).




There is so much wrong with the above quote that it is almost too much to make mention, but you´ll notice that, while not the only error, even you should be able to see a complete denial of the doctrine of perseverance in the above. Baptism IS election and some of the elect who do not persevere are lost. This is gross heresy and it is exactly what Wilson teaches and endorses. 



> Their theology may be formulated in an odd way, and you and I can disagree with it all we like. But neither of us has any right to make the rash accusation that they have somehow denied the Gospel! They may be in a different camp, but they are certainly not as far away from us as you think! They AGREE that salvation is by faith ALONE. And they AGREE that there is a real ontological difference between elect covenant members and reprobate covenant members.



It´s not that their formulation is odd, the problem is it is wrong. Also, there has been nothing rash in coming to the conclusion that these men are heterodox to the core. What you still fail to grasp is that these men deny that a man is justified by mere, or as Wilson says, "œraw" belief alone. We´re saved through the means of baptism and covenantal obedience. Of course, it may not be that you fail to grasp what these men are saying, it´s also very likely that you simply agree with them. OTOH, you were correct when you said:



> You may be able to find some quotes where they say that perseverance is *one* important difference between the two groups, but it certainly is not the *only* difference:



I very much agree. There is not one of the 5 points of Calvinism that men like Wilson do not redefine and ultimately deny. By their teaching they have marked themselves as being outside of the faith. The fact that the PCA and the OPC do not discipline the many prominent men in their ranks who teach such things, men like Steve Wilkins, Peter Leithart, John Kinnaird and many others, is merely evidence that the PCA and OPC have ceased to function as Christian churches. While I still hope against hope that this isn´t the case, my guess is their death certificates have already been issued and I´m just too slow to notice.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Jeff, please see my comments to Adam above. I am surprised that you are directing your moderator comments to me, rather than to Sean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for clarification, my comments were directed to anyone involved in this conversation, not just to you Joseph.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Jeff. Please forgive me for jumping to conclusions.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## Magma2

> I am more than happy to discuss the issues with a cool head. But if anyone wants to deny my clear statements that I reject the equation of "faith" with "faithfulness", then he will get my feathers in a ruffle. And I will respond accordingly. If he doesn't like this, then simply don't accuse me of things I clearly say I don't believe!



I´m glad to hear you reject the equation of faith with faithfulness. For what it's worth I never realized in any of my responses to you that you were under discussion, so I apologize for ruffling your feathers. However, while you do not equate faith with faithfulness, Wilson does.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> I´m glad to hear you reject the equation of faith with faithfulness. For what it's worth I never realized in any of my responses to you that you were under discussion, so I apologize for ruffling your feathers. However, while you do not equate faith with faithfulness, Wilson does.



Thank you for understanding where I stand.

As for Wilson, no, he does not equate faith with faithfulness. In fact, he says just the opposite:

on page 186, Wilson is clear:

"I have argued that promises are apprehended by faith,* not faithfulness or fidelity* . . ."



Again, saying that faith and faithfulness are _inseparable_ is not at all the same as saying that they are _identical_.

He is not saying that faith and faithfulness are to be equated. He is merely saying that you can't have one without the other. And as far as I know, every Reformed person in history has agreed with that fact. If you get justification, then you are also certain to get sanctification and glorification. They are not all the same thing, but they are all inseparably connected.


----------



## Magma2

> As for Wilson, no, he does not equate faith with faithfulness. In fact, he says just the opposite:
> 
> on page 186, Wilson is clear:
> 
> "I have argued that promises are apprehended by faith, not faithfulness or fidelity . . ."



Why is this surprising? As a consummate Van Tilian Wilson is well trained in the art of dialectics where he can affirm something out of one side of his mouth while denying it out of the other. Dealing in contradictory language is his stock and trade. After all, since VT asserts that all of Scripture is apparently contradictory, with no method by which we can tell the apparently from the really contradictory, why should the theology of those like Wilson walking in VT's footsteps be any different? 

Since you seem thankfully somewhat receptive to the Dr. McMahon, consider what he wrote concerning Wilson:



> In affirming such doctrines as justification by faith alone out of one side of his mouth, he demonstrates blatantly to the reader that he believes something different out of the other side of his mouth. [http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/WilsonDouglasReformedNotEnough.htm]



You should read the above review yourself and, just as an aside, McMahon says; "œJudas was not a Christian." And, while I´m at it: 



> Only those for whom Christ died are partakers of the benefits of the covenant of grace made with them, as the Westminster Confession of Faith says and Wilson denies. He would have anyone who says they are a "œChristian" in that covenant, and a partaker of it. Question 31 in the Westminster Larger Catechism says, "œQ31: With whom was the covenant of grace made? A31: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed."



Finally he concludes with a short summary of Wilson´s many heresies which include:



> 3) He believes in corporate justification which overthrows individual justification and redefines covenant inclusion by baptism instead of faith.
> 
> 4) He believes in sacerdotalism, and believes the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches baptismal regeneration (which it does not) and overthrows justification by faith alone.
> 
> . . . 6) He believes baptism is efficacious for salvation (baptism saves, kept in his context) apart from faith.
> 
> 7) He believes good works are the grounds by which one may have assurance of salvation specifically seen in accepting baptism without question. Baptism is then assurance (assurance by works).
> 
> 8) He believes that faithfulness to the covenant is justifying (which is his corporate justification).




Read heresy number 8 again over and over to yourself until the light goes on  




> Again, saying that faith and faithfulness are inseparable is not at all the same as saying that they are identical.



Let me guess; Dr. McMahon didn´t "œget it" either when he reviewed _Reformed is Not Enough_? Have I got it?

Look, if you want to believe that Wilson is your Christian brother and that he affirms JBFA and in no way conflates justification and sanctification don´t let me stop you. I´ve met quite few Romanists who say they affirm the imputation of Christ´s righteousness and even by faith alone. Of course, when you press them you find out that it is not mere belief alone that saves a man, but rather, citing James, they´ll tell you that it´s a "œfully formed"and obedient faith working its way out in love that ultimately saves. Sound familiar? Salvation is attained as we live our lives faithfully and in conformity to what God demands - and what their church commands - which is an explicit denial of the doctrine of imputation which my Romanist friends say they affirm. 

My problem is that you are not carefully taking into account all that Wilson says and how he has carefully and surreptitiously redefined key terms. He has succeeded in making you think he´s saying one thing when in reality he means another. That´s why he´s such an effective and dangerous charlatan. He would make a great sideshow huckster and if his con only cost people their money rather than their souls, I wouldn't lose any sleep. Or, to put it another way, if Wilson´s novelties didn´t cut to the very heart of the gospel, which is JBFA, then perhaps I could be more charitable.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> As for Wilson, no, he does not equate faith with faithfulness. In fact, he says just the opposite:
> 
> on page 186, Wilson is clear:
> 
> "I have argued that promises are apprehended by faith, not faithfulness or fidelity . . ."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this surprising? As a consummate Van Tilian Wilson is well trained in the art of dialectics where he can affirm something out of one side of his mouth while denying it out of the other. Dealing in contradictory language is his stock and trade. After all, since VT asserts that all of Scripture is apparently contradictory, with no method by which we can tell the apparently from the really contradictory, why should the theology of those like Wilson walking in VT's footsteps be any different?
Click to expand...


Just keep in mind that, by slamming VT, you are slamming probably the majority of Reformed theologians on this board. It's a separate debate that I don't care to enter into right now. But just keep that in mind. You aren't just slamming Wilson, you are slamming McMahon, and a number of others here on the PB, most of whom have nothing whatsoever to do with the FV.



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Since you seem thankfully somewhat receptive to the Dr. McMahon, consider what he wrote concerning Wilson:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In affirming such doctrines as justification by faith alone out of one side of his mouth, he demonstrates blatantly to the reader that he believes something different out of the other side of his mouth. [http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/WilsonDouglasReformedNotEnough.htm]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess; Dr. McMahon didn´t "œget it" either when he reviewed _Reformed is Not Enough_? Have I got it?
Click to expand...


Bingo. McMahon missed the point just as badly as you did. He doesn't have a clue what Wilson was saying, and neither do you.

I highly recommend you read this review of McMahon's critique. Craig Sowder and Keith Darrell soundly demonstrate how far off base McMahon was in his reading of Wilson's book. So instead of hashing out McMahon's critique with me, and reinventing the wheel, please read the excellent things these 2 guys have already written.



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> My problem is that you are not carefully taking into account all that Wilson says and how he has carefully and surreptitiously redefined key terms. He has succeeded in making you think he´s saying one thing when in reality he means another.



My problem is that you are way too caught up in semantics. The word "justification" is nothing more than a placeholder for an idea. But that placeholder is not the idea itself. It is nothing more than a "j" and an "n" with lots of letters in between. Here is an example of why it is silly for you to get so caught up in semantics.

Frankly I see *no difference* between what Doug Wilson is doing with the word "justification" and what James did with the word "justification" in James 2. Please explain to me how you see any difference.


I can just see it now . . . You turn to a page in Doug Wilson's book, and see the phrase, "a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." And then you post that quote on the PuritanBoard as proof that Doug Wilson is a heretic. Basically, that is just what you have done!

Of course, as you probably know, that quote is not from Doug Wilson, but is from James 2:24. So there is certainly nothing heretical about it!

For some odd reason, you seem to think it is OK for James to use the word "justified" in this way, but that it is NOT ok for Doug Wilson to use the word "justified" in this way.

Would you please explain to me why you have this apparent double standard?




[Edited on 4-5-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Magma2

> Just keep in mind that, by slamming VT, you are slamming probably the majority of Reformed theologians on this board. It's a separate debate that I don't care to enter into right now. But just keep that in mind.



And your point is? Do you really think heretical notions like those of Norm Shepherd and Doug Wilson have been able to flourish in a vacuum? VT tilled the epistemic soil which enabled this rancid bed of heresy to grow . . . and, in my view, is the main reason why otherwise good Christian men in authority have been impotent to stop its spread. 



> Let me guess; Dr. McMahon didn´t "œget it" either when he reviewed Reformed is Not Enough? Have I got it?
> 
> Bingo. McMahon missed the point just as badly as you did. He doesn't have a clue what Wilson was saying, and neither do you.



I see, everyone is wrong except you Joseph. Thanks for the clarification.



> I highly recommend you read this review of McMahon's critique. Craig Sowder and Keith Darrell soundly demonstrate how far off base McMahon was in his reading of Wilson's book. So instead of hashing out McMahon's critique with me, and reinventing the wheel, please read the excellent things these 2 guys have already written.



Maybe next you´ll quote Wilson and his review of the book I wrote with Dr. Robbins; _Not Reformed At All_ where he called the book "œatrocious."  That was my favorite review.  Regardless, I´d rather read your refutation of McMahon. 



> My problem is that you are way too caught up in semantics. The word "justification" is nothing more than a placeholder for an idea. But that placeholder is not the idea itself. It is nothing more than a "j" and an "n" with lots of letters in between. Here is an example of why it is silly for you to get so caught up in semantics.



Yeah, we wouldn´t want clear definitions and the unambiguous use of words to interfere with the creative manipulation with eternal truths and doctrines. Perspectivalism in action. 



> Frankly I see no difference between what Doug Wilson is doing with the word "justification" and what James did with the word "justification" in James 2. Please explain to me how you see any difference.



I will agree I see no difference between what Doug Wilson is doing with the word "œjustification" and how his brothers in Rome understand what James did with the word in James 2. For Wilson James isn´t using the word to justify in a different sense, rather they both mean the same thing:



> So what is meant by faith? According to James faith without works is dead; according to Paul faith is all sufficient for salvation. But what does James mean by faith? The answer is perfectly plain. The faith which James is condemning is a mere intellectual assent which has no effect upon conduct. The demons also, he says, have that sort of faith, and yet evidently they are not saved (James 2:19). What Paul means by faith is something entirely different; it is not a mere intellectual assent to certain propositions, but an attitude of the entire man by which the whole life is entrusted to Christ. In other words, the faith that James is condemning is not the faith that Paul is commending.
> 
> The solution of the whole problem is provided by Paul himself in a single phrase. In Gal. 5:6, he says, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love." "Faith working through love" is the key to an understanding both of Paul and James. The faith about which Paul has been speaking is not the idle faith which James condemns, but a faith that works. It works itself out through love. And what love is Paul explains in the whole last division of Galatians. It is no mere emotion, but the actual fulfilling of the whole moral law. "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Gal. 5:14). Paul is fully as severe as James against a faith that permits men to continue in sin. The faith about which he is speaking is a faith that receives the Spirit who gives men power to lead a holy life.



You see, Paul and James both reject justification by mere belief alone, i.e., intellectual assent to the understood propositions of the Gospel, they both affirm a faith that works. Specifically, a faith that does the law. This is a faith that saves for both James and Paul. You´ll also notice Wilson´s brilliant use of double think and sleight of hand. It appears as if he is actually drawing a distinction between Paul and James, when in fact he asserts they´re both in agreement in that the faith that saves is the faith that works. 

But you´re skeptical. You think being the unrelenting meanie that I am, I´m just not being fair to old Dougy and haven´t understood anything he´s written. Then let´s continue since this next part is great:



> And so what is meant by works? Moreover, as the faith which James condemns is different from the faith which Paul commends, so also the works which James commends are different from the works which Paul condemns. Paul is speaking about "works of the law"-that is, works which are intended to earn salvation by fulfilling the law through human effort. James says nothing in chapter 2:14-26 about works of the law. The works of which he is speaking are works that spring from faith and are the expression of faith. Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice only because he believed God. His works are merely an evidence that his faith was real. *Such works as that are insisted upon by Paul in every epistle. Without them no man can inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21). Only-and here again James would have been perfectly agreed-such works as that can spring only from faith. They can be accomplished not by human effort, but only by the reception of the power of God. *http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=ArchivesByTopic&TopicID=14



Can any expression of salvation by FAITH AND WORKS be any clearer? When James and Paul talk about justification and its relationship to works they´re talking about the same thing and in the same sense. 

I honestly don´t think the Pope could have done a better job than little Douglas here.


----------



## py3ak

Sean,

I have been following this argument with some interest. This is what I got from Wilson with your comments on him.

1. Wilson believes that Paul and James are in agreement (is that bad?)
2. Wilson believes that Paul and James use the word 'justification' in the same way.
3. Wilson solves the apparent tension between Paul and James by stating that they use the word 'faith' differently. They are in agreement; but their vocabulary is distinct (as I understand, most Reformed people agree with this, generally speaking, but many will say that the different vocabulary comes in with the word 'justification').
4. Wilson's view is that faith is more than assent (in which view he feels supported by Paul and James --or twists them wilfully in order to make it seem that way).
5. Therefore, Wilson is bad.

Have I understood you?


----------



## Magma2

> I have been following this argument with some interest. This is what I got from Wilson with your comments on him.
> 
> 1. Wilson believes that Paul and James are in agreement (is that bad?)



Of course Paul and James are in agreement. What´s bad is the agreement Wilson asserts. 



> 2. Wilson believes that Paul and James use the word 'justification' in the same way.
> 3. Wilson solves the apparent tension between Paul and James by stating that they use the word 'faith' differently. They are in agreement; but their vocabulary is distinct (as I understand, most Reformed people agree with this, generally speaking, but many will say that the different vocabulary comes in with the word 'justification').



When James tells us "œthat a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" he is NOT using the word to justify in the sense of being accounted righteous before the judgment seat of God. When Paul tells us "œthat a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," he is using the word "œto justify" in exactly this sense. The deadly error of Wilson is that the agreement he finds between Paul and James is the same agreement maintained by Rome. Wilson rejects salvation by mere believe alone. He hates and bristles against it and denigrates mere belief as being somehow "œraw" or even Satanic. For Wilson a man is justified by having a faith that works, for him no other faith can save. 



> 4. Wilson's view is that faith is more than assent (in which view he feels supported by Paul and James --or twists them wilfully in order to make it seem that way).
> 5. Therefore, Wilson is bad.
> 
> Have I understood you?



I think you have. Wilson has expertly capitalized on the grossly defective and tautological traditional three-fold definition of faith to great affect and has employed the dubious addition of "œfiducia" in order to smuggle in works as a necessary component of what makes faith saving: 



> It is the essential nature of fiducia to trust gladly in everything that God has spoken in His Word"”"”whether law or gospel, Old or New Testaments, poems or prose, odd-numbered pages or even. This means that fides salvifica is related to ongoing fidelity, trust or obedience in the same way that a body is related to breathing. Without a body, there is nothing to breathe with. Without breathing, there is something that needs to be buried.



Yet, contrary to Wilson's ongoing, obedience which he says is the only faith that saves, Jesus said; "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." Paul said; if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." Yet, in spite of this, for Wilson "œfides salvifica" requires our ongoing fidelity, trust and obedience. It´s not simply that those who so believe will evidence the truth of their faith before men by their good works, but rather the works of the law are a necessary element in what makes faith saving. By faith and works a man is justified and accounted righteous before the judgment seat of God. I would ask you to compare what Wilson says concerning saving faith in light of the WCF´s definition of justification and the role both belief and works of obedience play in our justification (For what it's worth Wilson also doesn't understand that faith and belief mean the same thing and are variants of the same Greek word, but that's for another post):



> Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth; *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.



You'll note that for Wilson good works and justification are reciprocals. Justification is not the cause or ground of sanctification and good works, but the equivalent. Contrary to Wilson´s Moscow theology, Dr. Robbins writes:



> The writers of Scripture repeatedly exhort believers to lead holy lives: Their argument is, You are already Christians; you have already passed from death to everlasting life; you are already saved; therefore, act like Christians. A typical example of such exhortations is
> 
> For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light"¦"¦. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them"¦"¦. See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil"¦"¦ [Ephesians 5:8, 15-16].
> 
> There are dozens of such exhortations. But our acting like Christians does not save us, for we are already saved. The indicative - salvation - precedes the imperative: Behave as the saved people you are. Our obedience is not the condition or ground of our salvation; our salvation is the condition or ground of our obedience (September/October 2001 Trinity Review "“ "œFalse Shepherd").



To sum up; works play no role whatsoever in salvation.


----------



## biblelighthouse

*"Justification is by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone."*

Sean, do you agree with that statement, or not? Is there such a thing as a "saving faith" that nevertheless produces no good fruit?



I read all of your Wilson quotes above, and the classic Reformed statement above is *precisely* what he is saying. A faith that doesn't work is a faith that doesn't save. But the justification is on the basis of the faith, not on the basis of the works produced by the faith. That is the historic Reformed doctrine of justification.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is quite different. They too say that a faith that doesn't work is a faith that doesn't save. But for the Roman Catholics, justification is on the basis of BOTH the faith AND the works produced by the faith.

Thus, when we compare the Reformed & RC doctrines of justification, Wilson clearly falls into the camp of the former, not the latter.






> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> For Wilson a man is justified by having a faith that works, for him no other faith can save.






It sounds like Wilson *nails* the Reformed doctrine of justification perfectly! Please see these sample quotes from Gerstner, Schwertly, and Luther. They say the same thing Wilson said:


As Dr. John Gerstner said: "Faith is Not a Work, but it is Never without Work"

As Brian Schwertly said: "Justification is by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone. Biblical Protestants agree with the apostle James "œthat faith without works is dead" (Jas. 2:20). "

*"œJustification is by faith alone, but not by the faith that IS alone."* - Martin Luther

[Edited on 4-6-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse

I just received a U2U message a little bit ago, and I would like to share it with everyone. To respect privacy, I won't share the name. But the sender of the U2U is welcome to post on this thread if he so desires.

Check out what he had to say in response to the current thread:



> Joseph,
> 
> First, I'll say that I have read "Reformed is Not Enough" by Wilson. I didn't appreciate the book very much. Personally, I would not consider Wilson "Reformed". He teaches a form of baptismal regeneration (pgs 103, 105, 107), and paedo-communion (pgs 114,115,127). I am uncertain what he means by "corporate regeneration" (pg 35) and "corporate justification" (pg 175) and don't know why he wants to use such terms (I'll give the benefit of the doubt and hope he doesn't mean the same thing as Rich Lusk does on pg 273 of "The Federal Vision").
> 
> I've also read "The Federal Vision", in which he contributes a short chapter in which he says nothing different than what he says in "Reformed is Not Enough". However, I do not understand why he would want to share the authorship and hence be identified with Steve Wilkins, John Barach, Rich Lusk, Steve Schissel and James Jordan (all of whose chapters in the book are ï»¿nauseating).
> 
> That being said, I've been reading through the Douglas Wilson thread, and have to give some credit here. Your defense of Wilson on justification by faith alone is right on target. Wilson does not teach the Romish doctrine, but instead defends the historic Reformed doctrine from the antinomianism of easy believism.
> 
> Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that your hard work has not been missed on everyone.



I want to commend the sender of this U2U. He obviously disagrees with Wilson on many counts, and could in no way be called an FV guy. Nevertheless, just like me, he recognizes that Douglas Wilson is NOT heretical. Rather, everything Wilson says is merely an "in-house debate". Wilson is not an enemy. Rather, he is a dear Christian brother with whom we should discuss doctrine. If he is in error, then exhort him. If we are in error, then he will exhort us. But in all things within the body of Christ, "iron sharpens iron". --- I want to thank the sender of this U2U for not jumping onto the loose-cannon heresy-happy bandwagon. THANK YOU for being one of the many who refuse to anathematize Wilson for doctrinal differences of a less-than-critical nature!


----------



## Magma2

> "Justification is by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone."
> 
> Sean, do you agree with that statement, or not? Is there such a thing as a "saving faith" that nevertheless produces no good fruit? . . . A faith that doesn't work is a faith that doesn't save.



 You don´t get it do you Joseph? Yes, sanctification follows justification, but all the works ever done by every Christian who has ever lived can contribute precisely nothing to the salvation of even one sinner. Contrary to you and Wilson's false gospel, works do not make faith saving. 

As for your anonymous admirer, I´ll just repeat the words of Calvin Beisner:

"œOne cannot consistently maintain the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and yet affirm some of the definitive elements of what has come to be known as the Federal Vision or Auburn Avenue Theology. That some manage inconsistently to maintain both is a testimony to their intellectual inabilities, not to the orthodoxy of the FV/AAT."


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Yes, sanctification follows justification, but all the works ever done by every Christian who has ever lived can contribute precisely nothing to the salvation of even one sinner.



Sean, I agree with you. 

Douglas Wilson agrees with you too. He never says that your good works contribute to your salvation.




> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Contrary to Wilson's false gospel, works do not make faith saving.



Wilson never says that works make faith saving. Where did you get that? Would you care to share any quotes to this effect?


Rather, Wilson says what every other Reformed theologian in history has said: A faith that does not work is a faith that does not save.

The message is NOT that the good works somehow get "added to the faith" to make it "good enough". It looks to me like this is your misinterpretation of Wilson.

Rather, the message is this:


There are two different kinds of "faith". There is "real faith", and there is "spurious faith". There is "living faith" and "dead faith". Only "real faith" saves. A person who truly trusts in Christ alone for his salvation has "real faith". And it is this faith alone that saves him.

Notice that I said NOTHING about "works" in that paragraph. I just said that there is a (real) faith that does save, and a (dead) faith that does not save. Real faith is that faith which truly trusts in Christ alone for salvation. Dead faith is that faith which does NOT trust in Christ alone for salvation. 

Now, *totally apart from speaking about conditions for salvation*, I will make another statement:

"Real faith" always bears the fruit of good works.
"Dead faith" does not bear the fruit of good works.

And you would agree with this statement, correct? This statement is precisely the same as Luther's: "Justification is by faith alone, but not by faith that IS alone."


Here's the deal: 
1) Reformed theologians say that only "real faith" in Christ saves.
2) Reformed theologians say that "real faith" always results in good works.

BOTH statements are true! But they are both statements about the real faith, NOT statements about the grounds of salvation! 


If I say that "only real faith saves", I have made a true statement.
If I say that "real faith always produces fruit", I have made a true statement.
And AT NO TIME do I ever suggest that the good works themselves have anything to do with my salvation.


Here is a simple (imaginary) analogy:

Suppose (for the sake of argument) that yellow-skinned apples have vitamin-C, but that red-skinned apples do not have vitamin-C. And suppose that the *cause* of vitamin-C-presence is totally based on genetics *alone*. ---- Now, if I said, "only yellow apples have vitamin C", then I would be making a true statement. However, I would NOT be implying that the color of apple-skin was the *cause* of vitamin-C-presence. Rather, to be technically articulate, I would have to say, "genetics caused the apple to be yellow, and genetics caused the apple to have vitamin C". Genetics caused BOTH; and they did not cause each other. For example, if I painted a red apple with yellow paint, it wouldn't cause that red apple to suddenly contain vitamin C.

So the color of the apple skin has NO causative factor regarding the presence of vitamin C. Nevertheless, since yellow skin and vitamin C always go together, I can still *honestly* say that "only yellow-skinned apples contain vitamin-C." But it is a statement of parallelism, NOT a statement of causation.

Now, maybe my analogy was fanciful. But hopefully it carries the point. It is a true statement that "the only faith that saves is a faith that works". But it is a statement of parallelism, NOT a statement of causation. BOTH the true faith and the good works are gifts from God. And justification is granted on the basis of the faith ALONE. Nevertheless, true faith and good works ALWAYS are found together. You can't have one without the other, any more than you can have yellow apples without vitamin C.




That's as simply as I know how to explain it, Sean. So if you don't understand that, then you frankly don't understand what any Reformed theologian in history has taught, because that is what ALL of them taught.





"Justification is by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone."

Is there such a thing as a "saving faith" that nevertheless produces no good fruit? Of course not. . . . A faith that doesn't work is a faith that doesn't save.


----------



## py3ak

Sean, thanks for clarifying. I am glad to know that I did understand you. One more question. Assuming you allow the existence of a dead faith, what distinguishes dead faith from living faith? For Wilson, from your quoting of him, it seems to be that one is assent and another is assent plus something. How would you distinguish the demonic belief from the believer's belief?

Joseph,

When you say that


> the justification is on the basis of the faith


 what do you mean?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Joseph, you are confounding Justification and Sanctification, in my opinion, when you say "A faith that does not work is a faith that does not save."


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> 
> Joseph,
> 
> When you say that
> 
> 
> 
> the justification is on the basis of the faith
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean?
Click to expand...



Ruben,

Thank you for the question.

Specifically, I said: 
"justification is granted on the basis of the faith ALONE. Nevertheless, true faith and good works ALWAYS are found together. You can't have one without the other"


A person cannot receive justification without faith. Hopefully we all agree on that.

When God sees a person, He sees at least two things:
1) that persons faith,
and 
2) that person's works

And hypothetically, God could justify a person one of two ways:
1) based on that person's faith + works
or
2) based on that person's faith alone, without regard to his works


Of course, option #1 is Roman Catholic, and is not even an option at all.

Option #2 is the Biblical, Reformed, Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone.



When God justifies a person (declares that person righteous), I believe God does it on the basis of that person's faith alone, and NOT on the basis of any works performed by that person whatsoever.


----------



## py3ak

Joseph, I guess I should be a little more precise. Is a person justified "on the basis" of faith or "through" faith? While I am confident this is not what you mean, when you use the term "basis" it rings a neonomian warning bell in the back of my mind. (Compare He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named's post http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=2120)


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Joseph, you are confounding Justification and Sanctification, in my opinion, when you say "A faith that does not work is a faith that does not save."



Gabriel, thank you for your input.

I certainly don't want to be argumentive . . . I honestly want to understand your perspective . . . please explain to me how it is that you think my statement confounds justification with sanctification? I do not understand why you are making that charge.

I believe (as did all the Reformers) that "a faith that does not work is a faith that does not save."

Please help me understand how that statement is _any different whatsoever_ from these sample statements:



> As Dr. John Gerstner said: "Faith is Not a Work, but it is Never without Work"
> 
> As Brian Schwertly said: "Justification is by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone. Biblical Protestants agree with the apostle James "œthat faith without works is dead" (Jas. 2:20). "
> 
> *"œJustification is by faith alone, but not by the faith that IS alone."* - Martin Luther




Like I said: "A faith that does not work is a faith that does not save."


Now, let me break up that statement into its constituent parts. 

First of all, I am saying that there are two different kinds of faith. There is true faith, and there is dead faith. Do you agree with me so far, Gabriel? If so, great. (If not, then let's stop here and see why we disagree on this point.)

True faith is self-explanitory. It is simple honest belief in Jesus Christ for the salvation from sin. This is real faith.

Dead faith is false faith. It may _outwardly appear_ identical to true faith _for a while_. But from day one, it never _truly_ trusts in Christ for salvation. Thus, it is not real faith at all. Perhaps this could be better termed "apparent faith".

Now let me ask you: Which one of these two kinds of faith can save? Does God justify people on the basis of true faith, on the basis of dead faith, or on the basis of both?

I would argue from Scripture that ONLY true faith is salvific. Dead faith cannot save (James 2). Apparent faith is not good enough (Matthew 7:21-23).

In other words, I am saying that salvation is only granted to true, actual, real faith. If a person honestly believes in Christ for salvation, then he is justified by faith alone. Works have absolutely NOTHING to do with this imputed righteousness received by the sinner.


**** Now, on a totally SEPARATE note *****

Of the two types of faith, which one produces good fruit? Clearly, the dead faith does not produce good fruit. The true faith, though, most certainly WILL produce good works. As you well pointed out, this is sanctification, NOT justification. This is progression in holiness, NOT imputed righteousness.




Now let's ask the question: 

Q: "Which faith saves?"
Answer: "Only True faith saves. Dead faith does not save."


Now let's ask this:

Q: "Which faith works?"
Answer: "Only True faith works. Dead faith does not bear good fruit."



------------- We have made two separate and distinct statements. Now let's succinctly say BOTH distinct truths in a single statement ---------


"A faith that does not work is a faith that does not save."



This statement is perfectly logical, and is perfectly TRUE. 

Notice what is NOT said in the statement. The statement does NOT say that the salvation is *because* of the works! If it said THAT, then I WOULD be confounding justification with sanctification.

But I am saying nothing of the sort. Rather, I am simply pointing out that there are two different kinds of faith, and that only one kind of faith saves. True faith saves; dead faith does not save. True faith works; dead faith does not work. 

What kind of faith is true faith? It is a faith that results in works!

Therefore, what kind of faith saves? The only faith that saves is the faith that works! 

But it does not save BECAUSE it works. Rather, salvation & works are two DIFFERENT things that EACH flow out from true faith SEPARATELY.

*In other words, true faith results in both justification AND sanctification. *

The justification is granted BECAUSE of the faith. The justification is NOT granted because of the works.





*Roman Catholic theology* looks like this:









*Reformed theology* looks like this:







Justification comes on the basis of true faith.
Works flow out of true faith.
Thus, "the faith that works is the faith that justifies".

And since dead faith brings about neither justification nor good works, we can also say that "the faith that doesn't work is the faith that doesn't justify".

The negatives always go together, and the postives always go together.

(It is kind of like people in the Bible sparing someone's life, judging by how they pronounce the word "Shibboleth". They did not save someone or kill someone because they wanted the word pronounced a certain way. Rather, the basis for saving or killing a person was based on totally different grounds. But they just used their pronunciations of the word "Shibboleth" as a way to _properly identify_ the people they were looking for. It was a method of identification, NOT a grounds for saving or killing someone.)


As you can clearly see in the diagram, justification is NOT on the basis of works, and does NOT flow from works in any way. Justification is on the basis of faith ONLY.

Justification and works both come from faith, but only side by side, in parallel lines. 


Make sense?







[Edited on 4-7-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Myshkin

If I may as an observer. It is clear to me, I think, that Joseph is only articulating the reformed position. 

The original discussion is whether Wilson agrees with this position. Based on what has been stated I think he does, _if_ his statements on justification quoted by Joseph are left alone. However as Sean and others have pointed out, it is the other stuff (faith, works, covenant, etc.) that seems to take away any area of orthodoxy on justification that was stated.

To be clear, I am not a Wilson advocate, and I am not pro-FV, however I don't think it is fair to Joseph to paint him in to a corner that he is clearly articulating he wants no part of. If Joseph is confused, he is confused about Wilson agreeing with the truth. I don't think he is confused about what that truth is. I may be wrong, but I have no horse in this race and am giving Joseph the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, I think the discussion would progress better if a focus on the definition/nature of faith would be given by Joseph and Sean.

If faith is reduced to mental assent, than Joseph's point is confirmed by historic reformed orthodoxy. If faith is revised to include works as part of the nature of faith itself as opposed to a fruit of that faith, then Sean's point is confirmed by historic reformed orthodoxy.

Anyways, just thought I'd feebly attempt to spur on the discussion towards clarity. Maybe discussing the nature of faith would help? 

(back to the sidelines...)

[Edited on 4-7-2006 by RAS]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> If I may as an observer. It is clear to me, I think, that Joseph is only articulating the reformed position.



Thank you!



> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> The original discussion is whether Wilson agrees with this position.



Correct. And I am arguing that Wilson believes the reformed position every bit as much as I do.



> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> Based on what has been stated I think he does, _if_ his statements on justification quoted by Joseph are left alone.



Again, thank you!



> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> However as Sean and others have pointed out, it is the other stuff (faith, works, covenant, etc.) that seems to take away any area of orthodoxy.



Please clarify what you mean by this statement. _Specifically_ what is it that Wilson has said about "faith, works, covenant, etc." that causes you to question his orthodoxy in any way? I have already discussed Wilson's statements about faith & works, and they are no different from the classic reformed view of faith and works. The faith that works is the same faith that saves. But the salvation is based only on the faith, not on the works. So what is wrong with Wilson's view, in your opinion?




> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> That being said, I think the discussion would progress better if a focus on the definition/nature of faith would be given by Joseph and Sean.
> 
> If faith is reduced to mental assent, than Joseph's point is confirmed by historic reformed orthodoxy.



 To have true faith, you have to:
1) have knowledge (content)
2) mental assent to that knowledge (conviction)
3) trust in Christ according to that conviction (personal confidence)

Works have nothing to do with it.


True faith ALWAYS results in salvation.
True faith ALWAYS results in good works.
Thus, the faith that works is the same faith that saves.
But the salvation is based only on the faith, not on the works:







> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> If faith is revised to include works as part of the nature of faith itself as opposed to a fruit of that faith, then Sean's point is confirmed by historic reformed orthodoxy.



Wilson (and the rest of the reformed community) say that good works are the fruit of true faith. Wilson (and the rest of the reformed community) do not revise faith to include works as part of the nature of faith itself. 

For example, apples are not a tree, and a tree is not an apple. The nature of "apple treeness" does not include apples in its definition. An apple tree can live for years as a sapling without ever bearing apples, and yet it still is an apple tree. However, it _is_ the nature of the apple tree to bear fruit eventually. It is coded into the DNA of the tree itself. The bearing of fruit is NOT what makes it an apple tree, but rather is the natural outgrowth of what that tree is in and of itself, apart from its fruit. --- The nature of faith does not include works as part of its definition. Nevertheless, the nature of faith is such that it eventually WILL bear good fruit. Good works are not part of the definition of faith, but the proclivity *toward* good works is built into the "DNA" of faith itself. A true faith saves. And true faith will eventually bear fruit. It is within its nature to do so.

Now, good works do not just "maybe" flow from true faith. Rather, good works *definitely* flow from true faith. Thus, it is a true statement that faith and works are *inseparable*. However, faith and works are not *identical*.

Wilson DOES say faith and works are inseparably tied together, as has said every other Reformed theologian in history. A faith that doesn't work is not true faith at all, because true faith always bears the fruit of good works.

Wilson does NOT say that faith and works are the same thing. 




> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> Anyways, just thought I'd feebly attempt to spur on the discussion towards clarity. Maybe discussing the nature of faith would help?
> 
> (back to the sidelines...)



THANK YOU very much for your contribution to this thread! I agree that the definition of faith is very important.

Ironically, I think the problem is that many opponents of Wilson are the ones who don't engage this argument with enough precision. Too many people mistake the word "inseparable" for "identical", and thereby mistake Protestant theology for Roman Catholic theology. If faith and works are one and the same, then we are talking Roman Catholicism. If faith and works are inseparably tied to one another, then we are talking Protestantism.

Works do not save.
Faith and works are not the same thing.
True faith always works.
True faith always results in salvation.
The faith that works is the same faith that saves.
Justification is by faith alone, but not by the faith that IS alone.




[Edited on 4-7-2006 by biblelighthouse]

[Edited on 4-7-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Magma2

> Sean, thanks for clarifying. I am glad to know that I did understand you. One more question. Assuming you allow the existence of a dead faith, what distinguishes dead faith from living faith?



Of course I allow for the existence of a dead faith, but unlike Wilson who argues that a dead faith is no different from true faith with the exception that it lacks works, I would say a dead faith is no faith at all. The term "œdead faith" is a metaphor. A word picture. Dead faith means lip service -- a feigned faith; the faith of a hypocrite. It is a person who says he believes, but really doesn´t. Who claims to assent to the truth of the Gospel, but does not. Remember, per Wilson, hypocrites *are* Christians and by their baptism they are the recipients of ALL the benefits of the Covenant (except obviously for the gift of faith and salvation). Amazingly and according to Wilson, "œboth the true and false son are brought into the same relation." Wilson doesn´t understand that 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. Wilson denial in his book that there are "nominal Christian" implies that all hypocrites are Christians. But the Bible speaks of "false brethren," "false teachers," and "false prophets," all of whom are nominal Christians.

To restate: for Wilson a person CAN believe the Gospel, assent to the truths of Scripture and Christ´s finished work on their behalf and still be lost. Like those who will one day cry "œLord, Lord" and point to their many outstanding works as evidence of their faith, and of whom Jesus will turn and say "œI never knew you," Wilson also would have us look to our works as evidence of our faith in order to receive our "œfinal justification." Therefore it follows, that belief alone is not enough to justify a man before the bar of divine justice. 

I would ask Joseph, as Wilson´s able defender and advocate on these boards (or at least the only one so far with the courage to show his face  ), would he "“ or would you, since you´re asking the question -- agree with the following :



> . . . James does not see anything wrong with the faith he is talking about. The faith isn´t the problem; the fact it is alone is the problem.
> 
> To understand what kind of faith James has in mind, one must avoid the temptation to read something bad into it. This is where the "mere intellectual assent" solution went wrong. Its advocates correctly identified verse 19 as the key to understanding the faith being discussed, which is intellectual assent. The problems were created by adding the term "mere" to make it sound bad. Leave "mere" off, and the problems vanish. Someone can go around boasting that he intellectually assents to God´s truth (v. 14), prompting James´s need to show that intellectual assent without works is dead and barren (vv. 17, 20, 26). He could offer to show his intellectual assent by his works (v. 18). And he could commend a person for having intellectual assent (v. 19a), while saying that even the demons have it though it doesn´t stop them from shuddering at the prospect of God´s wrath (v. 19b).
> 
> Finally, he can speak of how Abraham´s intellectual assent was active with and completed by his works (v. 22) and can conclude that man is not justified by intellectual assent alone (v. 24). James views intellectual assent as good thing ("you do well," v. 19a), but not as a thing that will save us by itself (vv. 14, 17, 20, 24, 26).



You also asked:



> For Wilson, from your quoting of him, it seems to be that one is assent and another is assent plus something. How would you distinguish the demonic belief from the believer's belief?



Let´s make sure we first agree with what Wilson is saying and that the assent plus something else which makes faith saving is an assent plus works; "œThe works of which he is speaking are works that spring from faith and are the expression of faith . . . Without them [works done by faith] no man can inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21). " Do we agree? 

Just an aside, it´s also important to note that Gal. 5:21 does not say anything at all what Wilson claims. What the verse states is; "œ. . . envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Wilson´s inference is invalid. The verse does not say nor does it imply that works done by faith are necessary in order to inherit the kingdom of God. Wilson doesn´t understand the alien righteousness of Christ; the righteousness of faith. In his sensate and "œphotographical" religion Wilson can only understand what he can see with the eyes in his head and that´s pretty doubtful too.

Anyway, I just want to make sure we´re on the same page before we can discus demonic theology, which is, after all, what I thought we´ve been discussing all along.

[Edited on 4-7-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Magma2

> That being said, I think the discussion would progress better if a focus on the definition/nature of faith would be given by Joseph and Sean.



I'm in agreement with Gordon Clark who defines faith as an assent to understood propositions. I think the addition of trust or "œfiducia" as a third component which is supposed to make faith "œsaving" is to, in essence, define the word faith with itself (since one of the synonym for belief per my thesaurus is trust) and adds nothing to the definition or to our understanding of what faith is. I would strongly recommend anyone interested to read Clark´s "œWhat is Saving Faith," even if only to see the profound confusion that has been the result of adding this third and mostly undefined element which is supposed to make ordinary belief salvific. OTOH, my hat is off to Wilson who is very clear in what he means by "œfiducia," even to the destruction of the Gospel.


----------



## Dan....

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . James does not see anything wrong with the faith he is talking about. The faith isn´t the problem; the fact it is alone is the problem.
> 
> To understand what kind of faith James has in mind, one must avoid the temptation to read something bad into it. This is where the "mere intellectual assent" solution went wrong. Its advocates correctly identified verse 19 as the key to understanding the faith being discussed, which is intellectual assent. The problems were created by adding the term "mere" to make it sound bad. Leave "mere" off, and the problems vanish. Someone can go around boasting that he intellectually assents to God´s truth (v. 14), prompting James´s need to show that intellectual assent without works is dead and barren (vv. 17, 20, 26). He could offer to show his intellectual assent by his works (v. 18). And he could commend a person for having intellectual assent (v. 19a), while saying that even the demons have it though it doesn´t stop them from shuddering at the prospect of God´s wrath (v. 19b).
> 
> Finally, he can speak of how Abraham´s intellectual assent was active with and completed by his works (v. 22) and can conclude that man is not justified by intellectual assent alone (v. 24). James views intellectual assent as good thing ("you do well," v. 19a), but not as a thing that will save us by itself (vv. 14, 17, 20, 24, 26).
Click to expand...


Sean,

Who wrote this quote?

[Edited on 4-7-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> Who wrote this quote?



Catholic Answers: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710chap.asp


----------



## MICWARFIELD

Thats funny. That quote is from James, an old friend of mine. I havent seen him in a few years. I've been meaning to get back in touch with him. He is VERY into trying to convert protestants into Catholics. He is very well studied. He definately drove me to search the scriptures. (Sorry for getting off subject.)


----------



## py3ak

> Of course I allow for the existence of a dead faith, but unlike Wilson who argues that a dead faith is no different from true faith with the exception that it lacks works, I would say a dead faith is no faith at all. The term "œdead faith" is a metaphor. A word picture. Dead faith means lip service -- a feigned faith; the faith of a hypocrite. It is a person who says he believes, but really doesn´t. Who claims to assent to the truth of the Gospel, but does not.


So dead faith is merely the insincere profession of a hypocrite, or the sincere but deluded profession of a self-deceived person? How would that then tie in to James' statement that the devils believe? I ask again, knowing that you asked me to answer another question first, viz, this one:


> Let´s make sure we first agree with what Wilson is saying and that the assent plus something else which makes faith saving is an assent plus works; "œThe works of which he is speaking are works that spring from faith and are the expression of faith . . . Without them [works done by faith] no man can inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21). " Do we agree?



I am not sure if we agree, because I am not sure I understand you --and clarifying in what sense the demons can be said to believe would help me to do so, I think. I gathered from your statement above that Wilson's view is this:
*Assent plus works is saving*.
Joseph, of course, believes that you are wrong. He thinks, if I understand him correctly, that Wilson is saying this:
*Saving faith always produces works*.
Of course, you and Wilson disagree on the question of whether dead faith is merely professed faith without true belief, or whether it is intellectual assent _simpliciter_ 

While I'm at it, I would like to ask Joseph again, as it kind of got buried in a flurry of posts. Between the statements that, A. *justification is on the basis of faith* or B. *justification is through faith* which would you choose?

[Edited on 4-8-2006 by py3ak]


----------



## Magma2

> So dead faith is merely the insincere profession of a hypocrite, or the sincere but deluded profession of a self-deceived person?



I don´t see that it matters, in both cases the profession is a false one. 



> How would that then tie in to James' statement that the devils believe?



This is what Calvin says: "œ. . . it would be ridiculous were any one to say, that the devils have faith; and James prefers them in this respect to hypocrites."œ Can you guess what Calvin would say about Wilson? 



> :
> Let´s make sure we first agree with what Wilson is saying and that the assent plus something else which makes faith saving is an assent plus works; "œThe works of which he is speaking are works that spring from faith and are the expression of faith . . . Without them [worksdone by faith] no man can inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21). " Do we agree?
> 
> I am not sure if we agree, because I am not sure I understand you --and clarifying in what sense the demons can be said to believe would help me to do so, I think. I gathered from your statement above that Wilson's view is this:
> Assent plus works is saving.
> Joseph, of course, believes that you are wrong. He thinks, if I understand him correctly, that Wilson is saying this:
> Saving faith always produces works.
> Of course, you and Wilson disagree on the question of whether dead faith is merely professed faith without true belief, or whether it is intellectual assent simpliciter



Well, Ruben, it´s hard for me to see any qualitative difference between the argument against justification by faith alone in the quote I provided from Catholic Answers and in the selection I provided from Wilson´s blog. Also, there is nothing "œmere" about assent and in Wilson´s case its addition is an unnecessary rhetorical device. Wilson doesn´t understand what´s entailed in assent and he evidently can get a lot of milage out of the ignorance of many. If you can find any substantial disagreement between the argument presented by these men, let me know? Look at them again:

*Wilson*: "œThe demons also, he says, have that sort of faith, and yet evidently they are not saved (James 2:19)."

*Catholic Answers *: Someone can go around boasting that he intellectually assents to God´s truth (v. 14), prompting James´s need to show that intellectual assent without works is dead and barren (vv. 17, 20, 26). He could offer to show his intellectual assent by his works (v. 18). And he could commend a person for having intellectual assent (v. 19a), while saying that even the demons have it though it doesn´t stop them from shuddering at the prospect of God´s wrath (v. 19b).

*Wilson*: "œThe answer is perfectly plain. The faith which James is condemning is a mere intellectual assent which has no effect upon conduct."

*Catholic Answers *: James does not see anything wrong with the faith he is talking about. The faith isn´t the problem; the fact it is alone is the problem.

*Wilson *: "œWhat Paul means by faith . . . is not . . . intellectual assent to certain propositions, but an attitude of the entire man by which the whole life is entrusted to Christ . . . Faith working through love" is the key to an understanding both of Paul and James. The faith about which Paul has been speaking is not the idle faith which James condemns, but a faith that works. 

*Catholic Answers*: "œFinally, he can speak of how Abraham´s intellectual assent was active with and completed by his works (v. 22) and can conclude that man is not justified by intellectual assent alone (v. 24)."

Both Wilson and Rome deny that belief alone in the understood propositions of the Gospel are enough to save a man or is what makes faith "œsaving." Even if we disregard "œassent simpliciter" everyone should see that both assert that the addition of works done by faith are what make faith "œcomplete" or saving. So, for our purposes here, I could care less what Joseph thinks concerning what Wilson has written. If *you* can´t see that Wilson and Rome are in agreement concerning James and the nature of saving faith, then I frankly can´t see how I would have any better chance in answering your questions then I was in addressing Joseph´s many objections. I will just be wasting my time and yours. 

However, since so many seem so patently blind to the thinly veiled false gospel promulgated by Wilson and his allies, it gives me even less hope that God will cause men to rise up and throw these base heretics out of our ranks. Actually, if they would all leave and join Wilson´s denomination that would be a great blessing, but of course they won´t. I think perhaps the only solution is the one offered by Paul Elliot in his book, Christianity and Neo-Liberalism, which can be summed up; "œcome out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord . . . ."


----------



## py3ak

Sean,

Thanks again for your reply. I feel like I am slowly making some headway in understanding where different people are coming from on this whole issue. I grant you that Catholic Answers and Wilson sound very similar. But I wonder if there isn't a subtle difference at this point?


> Even if we disregard "œassent simpliciter" everyone should see that both assert that the addition of works done by faith are what make faith "œcomplete" or saving.


With Catholic Answers that does seem extremely clear. With Wilson's statements it seems possible that there is still one other possibility. According to Catholic Answers it is the addition of works to faith that makes faith saving. I think Wilson may be saying that is the character of saving faith to work. Obviously, they agree in taking "faith" in James 2 to refer to assent. But in one case the point would be: *without works faith is not saving, because works are essential to justification*, whereas in the other case it would be: *without works faith is not saving, because genuine faith is a living, busy active faith, and the lack of works demonstrates the falsity of the faith, without the works being in any sense the grounds or instrument of justification*.
Does that make any sense?


----------



## biblelighthouse

I have been ignorant throughout most of this discussion . . . ignorant about Sean Gerety, that is.

I finally realized that Sean co-wrote a book with John Robbins.

No wonder this discussion is going nowhere! 

I will still respond to some of the posts above, as I have time, just because other people are reading this thread. But no longer will I attempt to change Sean's mind. If he is comfortable working with John Robbins, then it is a waste of time for me to try to convince him of anything whatsoever.


Frankly, I would consider it an HONOR to be anathematized by John Robbins! If John ever bothers to call me a heretic, I will gladly find a link to where he does so, and I will proudly display the link on my website. My opinion is that Robbins is a nut; and I categorically ignore what he has to say. 


I am amazed that anyone would want to write a book with John Robbins.

However, I do hope Sean is better than Robbins. I guess only time will tell.



[Edited on 4-8-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Sean,
> 
> Thanks again for your reply. I feel like I am slowly making some headway in understanding where different people are coming from on this whole issue. I grant you that Catholic Answers and Wilson sound very similar. But I wonder if there isn't a subtle difference at this point?
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we disregard "œassent simpliciter" everyone should see that both assert that the addition of works done by faith are what make faith "œcomplete" or saving.
> 
> 
> 
> With Catholic Answers that does seem extremely clear. With Wilson's statements it seems possible that there is still one other possibility. According to Catholic Answers it is the addition of works to faith that makes faith saving. I think Wilson may be saying that is the character of saving faith to work. Obviously, they agree in taking "faith" in James 2 to refer to assent. But in one case the point would be: *without works faith is not saving, because works are essential to justification*, whereas in the other case it would be: *without works faith is not saving, because genuine faith is a living, busy active faith, and the lack of works demonstrates the falsity of the faith, without the works being in any sense the grounds or instrument of justification*.
> Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...



  


AMEN, Ruben! You understand it!!

Your excellent input definitely makes this thread worthwhile. THANK YOU for taking part in this discussion, Ruben!

You have stated Wilson's position PERFECTLY, in my opinion. And you have done an excellent job of demonstrating why Wilson's view is TOTALLY different from Rome's view.

A+ superb! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!





Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## biblelighthouse

Ruben put it better than I did! In a nutshell:

"the lack of works demonstrates the falsity of the faith, without the works being in any sense the grounds or instrument of justification."


----------



## Arch2k

Joseph,

An attempt to discredit what has been said regarding Doug Wilson by appealing to a relationship to John Robbins is a genetic fallacy.

I realize that many people do not care for Mr. Robbins, but that does not invalidate the issues he raises against FV.

Would you make the same arguments against R. Scott Clark, Calvin Beisner, J. Ligon Duncan, et. al. who also see the serious errors of FV?


----------



## py3ak

Joseph,

I am glad my statements met with your approval. It seems like the only way to make sense of all parts of what Wilson says.
An interesting point that came up to me was the difference in the ways of reconciling James and Paul. Some do it by stating that they use 'justification' in a different sense and others by stating that they use 'faith' in a different sense. I think it might be a profitable discussion to hash out that difference (maybe in another thread). What is the evidence for different meanings to justification as opposed to different meanings for faith?

It has also caused me to wonder if there are any major splits among Gordon Clark followers? Van Til seems to have left at least two threads; did Clark leave just one, represented by Mr. Robbins? Or is there someone who feels that Robbins does not understand Clark?


----------



## Casey

Well, I just finished reading this whole thread -- I find it interesting that Wilson's _Credo on Justification_ cannot, on its own, settle the matter. Is not a creed written for the express purpose of being _clear_? If so, Wilson has failed in this respect . . in my humble opinion.

And he certainly manifested a strange twist in it:


> I believe that God established two distinct covenants with mankind, one before the Fall, and one after. The first covenant was called a covenant of works in the Westminster Confession (7.2). I would prefer to call it a covenant of creational grace. *The condition of covenant-keeping in this first covenant was to believe God´s grace, command, warnings, and promise.* _(Bold = mine)_


This is strange and novel (do I really have to say that?). The condition had little to do with _believing_ and everything to do with _obeying_. Well, obeying involves believing, too . . this is true (as the first table of the Commandments makes clear). But, it wasn't merely that he believe, he had to _obey!_


> Adam was a recipient of grace, and thus, the sin that plunged our race into death was a revolt against grace.


Wilson seems to confuse creation and covenant here. On account of God having created Adam, he had to believe he existed, and he had to obey God with a personal, perpetual, and perfect obedience -- even without the covenant!

The _goodness_ of God (note: not the _grace_ of God) is manifest in the "voluntary condescension." The point? Man always owed God obedience, but now God promised to bless that already-owed obedience! _This_ is what expresses the goodness of God.

So, Adam would have merited eternal life _ex pacto_, on account of the covenant. It wasn't that his works were inherently valuable, but that God was pleased, by "voluntary condescension" to attach a promised blessing to that obedience.

This is exactly what the Confession says (7.1): The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

So, to call this a covenant of "creational grace" seems rather silly to me. His definition of this strikingly different covenant from the one the Confession describes. It denies that Adam could have obeyed on his own merits, and seems to confuse grace (prelapsarian/postlapsarian grace?). I am just unclear with what he means by "grace" here. How is God's grace to Adam any different from his grace towards us in Christ? Is Wilson differentiating the two?


> The second covenant is a covenant of redemptive grace. The thing that the two covenants have in common is grace, not works.


No, he's not. That's what makes it confusing. Apparently grace is grace, and the same grace was in the first covenant that manifests itself in the second . . ?


> "œPerfect and personal obedience," even for an unfallen man, is not possible unless he trusts in God´s goodness and grace.


Wilson here seems rather clearly to deny the fourfold state of grace taught explicitly in the Confession's chapter on Free Will. I quote the Confession (9.2): Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

For Wilson, apparently Adam didn't have this power? Of course he had to obey God and believe in him, but is such the basis of his power to obey? No, the power to obey was not contingent on his obedience, but on the way God had created him. Strangely, it seems like Wilson is saying "Adam's obedience is based on his obedience." (Yes, in his _Credo_ he quotes from WCF 19.1, but he seems to deny this . . he's trying to ride the fence, it seems.)


> The condition for keeping this covenant is the same as the first, although the circumstances are different. The condition always is to believe God.


Wait a second. If, according to Wilson, _grace_ was required in the Covenant of Works to enable Adam for obedience in order to obey that covenant . . And the conditions of both covenants are the same (obedience, I suppose?), then in the Covenant of Grace is God merely giving the same sort of grace he gave in the Covenant of Works to Adam? Is God merely enabling us to obey? This seems to be what Wilson is saying (but, it's very possible I'm misunderstanding him).


> These points are made, not to smuggle "œworks" from the covenant of works into the covenant of grace, but rather the opposite. I believe we must insist that autonomous works be banished from every human realm and endeavor, whether fallen or unfallen (1 Cor. 1:31).


Seems to me he's trying to sit on that fence again. He's denying what he just tried to prove. Grace enables Adam for obedience. It's the same grace and same condition in the Covenant of Works as in the Covenant of Redemption. God enables us for obedience, by his grace, in the Covenant of Grace.

Am I reading him wrong? (Disclaimer: I have read very little of Wilson's other works, and am merely discussing on the basis of his _Credo_ quoted at the beginning of this thread . . which I supposed should be clear enough to make his point.)


----------



## py3ak

Casey,

I agree that Wilson seems very confused on the Covenant of Works. Smuggling grace into that covenant seems to be precisely what the Westminster divines were trying not to do. And I think that lack of understanding does play out into the rest of what he says. Of course, I am not a Wilson expert. I recently download _Reformed Is Not Enough_ but so far have found it deeply boring.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> I realize that many people do not care for Mr. Robbins, but that does not invalidate the issues he raises against FV.
> 
> Would you make the same arguments against R. Scott Clark, Calvin Beisner, J. Ligon Duncan, et. al. who also see the serious errors of FV?



Whereas I do not respect Robbins much, I certainly DO respect Clark, Duncan, etc.

However, I think their interpretive errors regarding the FV are just as grave. They miss the point just as badly as Robbins does. McMahon totally misses Wilson's point as well. And I highly respect McMahon!

The question keeps coming up: "Could all of these great theologians be wrong?"

The plain answer is: YES!! They are all wrong. They do not understand what Wilson is saying. And I do understand what Wilson is saying. 


If I were to explain Federal Vision theology, FV people would themselves agree that I have respresented them correctly.

But when McMahon, Duncan, Robbins, Clark, etc. attempt to explain Federal Theology, the FV people plainly point out that they have not been well-understood AT ALL.


Wilson does NOT believe in justification by faith + works. He believes in justification by faith alone.

Wilson DOES agree that Adam had to be PERFECTLY obedient in the Garden of Eden, in order to avoid the fall. So what's the huge stink? We are free to disagree with him regarding whether Adam could "merit" anything. But numerous (though certainly not all) Reformed theologians have questioned the place of "merit" in the Garden of Eden too, so even if Wilson is wrong, he is NOT outside the pale of orthodoxy.

Wilson does NOT believe that _ex opere operato_ *salvific* grace is conferred through the sacraments. If a person is baptized and/or partakes of the Lord's Supper, that does NOT automatically make that person right with Christ. Wilson is no Roman Catholic.

Wilson uses phrases like "baptismal regeneration", that make us uncomfortable. And frankly, it may be unwise for him to throw such phrases around. Nevertheless, he means something *very different* by that phrase that Roman Catholics do. Let Wilson define *himself*, and his discomforting language suddenly proves itself to be nothing resembing a scandal.

You may not like Wilson's paedocommunion. But I do! And so would Augustine, Cyprian, G.I. Williamson, Vern Poythress . . . 


At the end of the day, Wilson has said nothing that hasn't been said by other Reformed theologians. Wilson just says things in a way that gets people's feathers ruffled. Maybe Wilson goes too far with this. On the other hand, there are probably some people who need their feathers ruffled! But in any case, regardless of any agreements or disagreements, we should ALWAYS give a brother the benefit of the doubt, and do everything we can to TRY to understand him in a way that does NOT suggest "heresy".

Far too many Reformed Theologians are "heresy hunters", just looking for someone to verbally burn at the stake. And THIS error is FAR WORSE that ANY doctrinal error Wilson may or may not have. Heresy hunting is a SIN.

We should always assume the best, not the worst, and we should dialogue carefully with a brother, LONG before we finally toss in the towel and write off a brother as being an apostate heretic. I think Christ is *ashamed* of Robbins, McMahon, Duncan, Gerety, Clark, and anyone else who has jumped on the "FV is heresy" bandwagon. The body of Christ is hurt FAR worse by such slander, than it is hurt by any error the FV may have to offer. The distance between "FV" and "heresy" is so great that only a quick-tempered and uncharitable person would openly proclaim that the FV people are "going to hell", without having first had the courtesy to dialogue *directly* with them to make sure they have been *clearly* understood.


----------



## biblelighthouse

McMahon said:



> Take note of the Scriptures, especially on serious issues - Proverbs 29:20, "Do you see a man hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him." Such is the case when critiques are sent out that are unfair, or hasty in response.





That is EXCELLENT advice! I wish Robbins, Gerety, McMahon, Clark, Duncan, etc. would FOLLOW that advice regarding the FV!

I would be very interested to hear, for example, how much time ANY of these men spent dialoging *directly* with Doug Wilson? 

Early on, I spent a little time dialoging with Wilson's office, because there were some things I heard that truly concerned me. But my few questions were quickly cleared up quite to my satisfaction. --- And sadly, it is my genuine assumption that many of the men listed above didn't give Wilson the same courtesy. 

If I am wrong, then please correct me. If any of these men spent some serious time dialoging directly with Wilson before publicly blasting him, then I would be glad to hear that at least an attempt was made.


----------



## Casey

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> Am I reading him wrong? (Disclaimer: I have read very little of Wilson's other works, and am merely discussing on the basis of his _Credo_ quoted at the beginning of this thread . . which I supposed should be clear enough to make his point.)


Joseph, do you think I have misread Wilson's _Credo_ on Justification?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> Am I reading him wrong? (Disclaimer: I have read very little of Wilson's other works, and am merely discussing on the basis of his _Credo_ quoted at the beginning of this thread . . which I supposed should be clear enough to make his point.)
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph, do you think I have misread Wilson's _Credo_ on Justification?
Click to expand...



-------------------- My response: -------------------




> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> Well, I just finished reading this whole thread -- I find it interesting that Wilson's _Credo on Justification_ cannot, on its own, settle the matter. Is not a creed written for the express purpose of being _clear_? If so, Wilson has failed in this respect . . in my humble opinion.



Personally, I think Wilson´s _Credo on Justification_ is perfectly clear. I don´t have any difficulty understanding it (that I know of). However, I must respect the fact that Wilson´s _Credo_ is not clear to you. No one can argue with that.




> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> And he certainly manifested a strange twist in it:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that God established two distinct covenants with mankind, one before the Fall, and one after. The first covenant was called a covenant of works in the Westminster Confession (7.2). I would prefer to call it a covenant of creational grace. *The condition of covenant-keeping in this first covenant was to believe God´s grace, command, warnings, and promise.* _(Bold = mine)_
> 
> 
> 
> This is strange and novel (do I really have to say that?). The condition had little to do with _believing_ and everything to do with _obeying_. Well, obeying involves believing, too . . this is true (as the first table of the Commandments makes clear). But, it wasn't merely that he believe, he had to _obey!_
Click to expand...


Wilson agrees 100% that Adam had to obey. A couple sentences after your quotation, Wilson does make it clear that "œPerfect and personal obedience" was required of Adam. Wilson´s only qualification is that "œeven for an unfallen man, is not possible unless he trusts in God´s goodness and grace." 

In other words, Wilson is not belaboring the point about the necessity of Adam´s perfect obedience in the original covenant, because it is a given. We all 100% agree on that. Wilson´s focus, therefore, is elsewhere. While he agrees that Adam had to perfectly obey, he wants to stress the point that perfect obedience was ONLY possible via a gift from God. And since this gift from God was undeserved, it can properly be called "œgrace". The word "œgrace" does not have to be used in the context of sin. It is a word that can be properly used *anytime* that a person is given something he has not earned. It simply means "œunmerited favor".

I recently got an email from Mike Lawyer, an assistant of Doug Wilson. He was challenging my view of the Covenant of Works. He said:



> Just so you know, as I think you already do, Doug is all about grace. He´s all about receiving gracious things by faith. Not even Adam could have earned what cannot be earned. Salvation has always been a gift of God to undeserving people. *For Adam it would have been a gift to a man who never sinned, for us it is a gift to people who are sinners by nature.*



I believe this quote from Doug Wilson´s assistant is the same thing we would hear from Doug Wilson´s mouth if he were to participate in this discussion. 

There is a similarity: Adam received grace. And we receive grace.

There is also a difference: Adam received grace in a sinless state. But we receive grace in a sinful state. God has to condescend much further to offer us grace, than He did for Adam.




> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was a recipient of grace, and thus, the sin that plunged our race into death was a revolt against grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson seems to confuse creation and covenant here. On account of God having created Adam, he had to believe he existed, and he had to obey God with a personal, perpetual, and perfect obedience -- even without the covenant!
Click to expand...


Where do you see the word "œcovenant" in Wilson´s quote you give here?

Even if you take the covenant totally out of the picture, Wilson´s argument still remains coherent. He is arguing thus: Adam did not deserve to be created in the first place. It was gracious for God to even give him his very existence. And if God gave him the natural ability to retain perfect holiness, this was a gracious gift as well, which Adam did not and could not have earned. Thus, covenant or no covenant, Adam´s very existence was necessarily in a state of grace "“ having received unmerited favor from his Creator.

Thus, in this particular part of Wilson´s quote, I think any focus on the covenant itself is not necessary in order to understand Wilson´s thinking.




> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> The _goodness_ of God (note: not the _grace_ of God) is manifest in the "voluntary condescension." The point? Man always owed God obedience, but now God promised to bless that already-owed obedience! _This_ is what expresses the goodness of God.



Arguing from Wilson´s position, I think a person would have to say that your statement here just moves the question one step back. After all, did Adam *earn* or *merit* this reception of "œthe goodness of God"? Did Adam inherently *deserve* for God to create him and to be infinitely good to him? If not, then the word "œgrace" is still appropriate.




> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> So, Adam would have merited eternal life _ex pacto_, on account of the covenant. It wasn't that his works were inherently valuable, but that God was pleased, by "voluntary condescension" to attach a promised blessing to that obedience.



When you say, "œIt wasn´t that his works were inherently valuable", you argue strongly for Wilson´s point. You admit that Adam could not truly merit anything before God.

Then you go on to say that God voluntarily condescended to attach a promised blessing to the obedience. I think Wilson would heartily agree with you! But note your use of the phrase "˜voluntary condescension´. If it was "œvoluntary", then it must not have been *required* by strict (merit-based) justice. If it was a genuine "œcondescension", then it must not have been intrinsically *required* by strict (merit-based) justice. In other words, you are saying that Adam did not deserve for God to make this promise to him as a reward for obedience. Thus, you are saying that God was *gracious* to offer a reward in return for obedience.

In short, you are saying that Adam could merit salvation from God, but *only* because God was *gracious* enough to put him in that position of ability. 

Now, that would be a funny way to state it. But it appears to me that this is just what you have said, Casey. So we need to get rid of that word "œmerit", or we need to get rid of the word "œgracious", or we need to get over it. Those are our three options. 




> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> This is exactly what the Confession says (7.1): The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.





I love that part of the WCF. Do you think Wilson disagrees with anything in that paragraph at all? If so, what?



> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> So, to call this a covenant of "creational grace" seems rather silly to me. His definition of this strikingly different covenant from the one the Confession describes. It denies that Adam could have obeyed on his own merits,



How is his understanding different from the Confession?

Even if Adam could have obeyed totally on his own, where did he get this ability? Did he get this ability on his own, or did God create him with this ability? Of course, we would say that God created him with this ability. Well, did Adam *earn* the right to be created with this ability? Did Adam *merit* his own creation? Clearly, it would be silly to suggest that a yet-uncreated-being can merit *anything* from God. God was gracious to give Adam existence in His image. Adam didn´t deserve to be created like that! 

Adam didn´t merit the right to be created any more than a baby merits the right to be conceived. 

Life is a gracious gift from God. You can´t earn physical life any more than you can earn spiritual life.




> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> and seems to confuse grace (prelapsarian/postlapsarian grace?). I am just unclear with what he means by "grace" here. How is God's grace to Adam any different from his grace towards us in Christ? Is Wilson differentiating the two?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second covenant is a covenant of redemptive grace. The thing that the two covenants have in common is grace, not works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's not. That's what makes it confusing. Apparently grace is grace, and the same grace was in the first covenant that manifests itself in the second . . ?
Click to expand...



There is a similarity: Adam received grace. And we receive grace.

There is also a difference: Adam received grace in a sinless state. But we receive grace in a sinful state. God has to condescend much further to offer us grace, than He did for Adam. God only had to condescend down to a perfect man then. But He now condescends all the way down to fallen men, who are infinitely lower than Adam initially was.




> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "œPerfect and personal obedience," even for an unfallen man, is not possible unless he trusts in God´s goodness and grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson here seems rather clearly to deny the fourfold state of grace taught explicitly in the Confession's chapter on Free Will. I quote the Confession (9.2): Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.
> 
> For Wilson, apparently Adam didn't have this power? Of course he had to obey God and believe in him, but is such the basis of his power to obey? No, the power to obey was not contingent on his obedience, but on the way God had created him.
Click to expand...


But did Adam *merit* being created that way? Did Adam *deserve* to be created with such an awesome ability? If not, then we still come back to the same fact of unmerited favor (grace) existing before the fall.




> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The condition for keeping this covenant is the same as the first, although the circumstances are different. The condition always is to believe God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a second. If, according to Wilson, _grace_ was required in the Covenant of Works to enable Adam for obedience in order to obey that covenant . . And the conditions of both covenants are the same (obedience, I suppose?), then in the Covenant of Grace is God merely giving the same sort of grace he gave in the Covenant of Works to Adam? Is God merely enabling us to obey? This seems to be what Wilson is saying (but, it's very possible I'm misunderstanding him).
Click to expand...


I don´t think that is where Wilson is trying to go.

First of all, there is a difference. While God gives grace both to Adam and to us, it is very significant to note that God´s condescension is MUCH farther now than it was then. So in one sense, grace is much bigger now, because it lifts us so much farther (because we start out so much lower than Adam.) The *quality* of the grace is the same, but the *extent* of the grace has to be much greater for us, in order to lift us out from the deep pit of sin we are in.

Second of all, any Reformed theologian worth his salt DOES say that perfect sinless obedience is just as much a requirement for us as it was for Adam. But in our case, Christ keeps that requirement for us. Thank God that there is a Savior for us! But the presence of the Savior in no way removes that fact that perfect obedience is still required. The legal stipulations of the covenant aren´t any lighter for us than for Adam . . . it´s just that in our case there is someone else who meets the conditions for us, rather than we having to meet those conditions ourselves.




> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These points are made, not to smuggle "œworks" from the covenant of works into the covenant of grace, but rather the opposite. I believe we must insist that autonomous works be banished from every human realm and endeavor, whether fallen or unfallen (1 Cor. 1:31).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me he's trying to sit on that fence again. He's denying what he just tried to prove. Grace enables Adam for obedience. It's the same grace and same condition in the Covenant of Works as in the Covenant of Redemption. God enables us for obedience, by his grace, in the Covenant of Grace.
Click to expand...


Wilson is arguing that there is grace in both covenants. But he is not arguing that grace operates in precisely the same way in both covenants. 

I think Wilson is saying this:

for Adam:
God´s grace enabled Adam to obey.

for you and me:
God´s grace provided Christ to die in our place.
God´s grace provided Christ to obey in our place.
God´s grace caused us to trust in Christ.


I do not think Wilson is making both covenants the same. He sees most of the same distinctions that you and I see between them. He is just arguing that the presence of grace is NOT one of the distinctions. 

Obedience was required of Adam.
Trust in Christ´s obedience is required of us.
But in both cases, only God´s grace could bring about the good result.



> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> Am I reading him wrong? (Disclaimer: I have read very little of Wilson's other works, and am merely discussing on the basis of his _Credo_ quoted at the beginning of this thread . . which I supposed should be clear enough to make his point.)



I don´t think you are anywhere near the error of those who anathematize Wilson. I think your understanding of Wilson´s _Credo_ might have been a lot clearer if you had spent a lot of time reading other writings by Wilson. But since you have not done this, I think you raised some fair questions. I hope I understand Wilson correctly, and I hope I have helped clear up some of your questions about what Wilson is really saying. Please let me know whether I have succeeded or failed in this case.



Casey, thank you for participating in this discussion, and THANK YOU for your EXCELLENT attitude!! 


Your brother in Christ,
Joseph




[Edited on 4-9-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse

While we are on the topic of grace vs. merit, I would like to share some interesting quotes with you:



*John Calvin* openly complained about the word "merit", saying, "œI wish that Christian writers had always exercised such restraint as not to take it into their heads needlessly to use such terms foreign to Scripture that would produce great offense and very little fruit" (Institutes 3.15.2.). Regarding Christ he writes, "œIt is absurd to set Christ´s merit against God´s mercy"¦*Apart from God´s good pleasure Christ could not merit anything*" (Institutes 2.17.1.). 

Of Adam´s position in the garden of Eden, *Turretin* wrote, "œ*Adam"¦would not have merited life in strict justice*, although (through a certain condescension) God promised him by a covenant life under the condition of perfect obedience" (Institutes 17.5.7.). 

*Anthony Burgess (A Westminster delegate)* could say of the pre-fall situation, "œthough it were a Covenant of Works, *it cannot be said to be a covenant of merit*" (Quoted in Garver's essay, "œThe Covenant of Works in the Reformed Tradition," available at http://www.joelgarver.com). 

Theologian without number could be multiplied that made these same reservations. . . .

*Rowland Ward*, who has probably amassed a greater amount of resources than any other recent historian regarding the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works, has argued that *its administration was almost always seen as gracious, and its rewards as unmerited* (See his recent God and Adam).


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> If Adam would not have been justified by his obedience, then we have to assume that Christ did not obtain justification for us with His obedience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure that is valid. Type vs. Antitype works within a biblical framework as far as Federal headship goes, but Adam was able to fall, Christ, was not.
> 
> We are justified by Christ's works, and He Himself is justified by his own works. The very nature of His human works are rooted in that He was without sin and had a divine nature as well.
> 
> 
> Joh 5:36 But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me.
> 
> Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
> 
> Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
> 
> Joh 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."
> 
> Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
> 
> 
> And we perform good works through the power of the indwelling Spirit, not our flesh:
> 
> Joh 14:12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.
> 
> I have always thought Christ was the only man who could be justifies by his works . . is that wrong ?
> 
> [Edited on 3-16-2006 by Saiph]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> I would say the credo is a good example of confusion leading to problems. It most often comes from a sdesire to restate "better" classical formulations.
> 
> What do I mean? The initial two paragraphs are very good, and I say, "Amen!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that Jesus Christ was justified by God in His resurrection from the dead, being declared with power to be the Son of God (Rom. 1:4). He was justified in the Spirit (1 Tim. 3:16), vindicated by God, and exalted to the right hand of God the Father. This justification, along with *Christ´s active and passive obedience*, and all His other perfections, is *imputed to His people*, and is the only basis for all that they have in Him. This justification of Christ, this resurrection from the dead, was for our justification (Rom. 4:25).
> 
> I believe that God in His sovereign and secret decree has elected by name a countless number to eternal salvation (Eph. 1:11). Each of these elect are *justified individually,* and irreversibly, at the point of their conversion, when God imputes to them all the righteousness of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29-30). The *ground of this justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, plus nothing*, and is appropriated by the *instrument *of faith alone, plus nothing, and even this faith is to be understood as a gift of God, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-10).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem comes in that as soon as Wilson speaks of a "Covenant of Creational Grace," he is (unwittingly?) militating against those paragraphs. How? If the first Covenant was one of grace, not works, then how does Christ come by obedience that is imputed to us? what is the active obedience that Wilson speaks of that is imputed? It can't be fulfillment of the Covenant, since Wilson also says that Adam would not have earned anything by his obedience. Classical Reformed theology says that God graciously determined to make a covenant (where He did not have to) and to grant a reward upon obedience (which He again did not have to do), but once He did make that Covenant, He was bound by His oath.
> 
> Further, I think that this statement is at least unclear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Perfect and personal obedience," even for an unfallen man, is not possible unless he trusts in God´s goodness and grace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see the Scriptures ever calling unfallen man, or glorified man to trust in God's grace (which presumes demerit), but rather to trust in God Himself. A small difference perhaps, but significant.
> 
> This credo expresses well for me where Wilson is - I think he is orthodox in his main doctrine, and especially on imputation and justification. But he too often (and in too many areas) desires to be "cute" or novel and that makes things less clear instead of more. Not a good thing. I don't think a blanket condemnation of Wilson is in order. Instead we should affirm what is good in what he says, and at the same time warn that he is a confusing teacher at times. I hope I am coming accross as balanced and not strident, because that is how I feel at the moment.
Click to expand...


If Wilson is being 'cute', and knows the difference between orthodoxy and illicit in regards to justification, shame on him for being cryptic to the confusion of Gods saints! Personally, I know that Wilson knows the difference; sitting on the fence for the sake of being contemprary is just plain irresponsible, not at all cute. The overseeing body here on this forum is the RPCGA; Federal Vision is heresy. As has been said before, Wilson has elbowed up to the discipline; if he does not embrace it, it would behoove him to come out and say so, so as not to endanger Gods people whom look to his wisdom; I won't hold my 
breath.........

Joseph,
The board has no official rule per se on discussing Wilson. However, we are against components of the discussions that promote the heresy. Draw the line as you see fit, but be cautios as we will be watching.

[Edited on 4-9-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> If Wilson is being 'cute', and knows the difference between orthodoxy and illicit in regards to justification, shame on him for being cryptic to the confusion of Gods saints!



Wilson is not cryptic. He has said nothing unorthodox concerning justification. He believes in _sola fide_ like you and me. There just happen to be a number of people (such as yourself) who have a "Ready, Fire, Aim" mentality. Instead of being responsible, you just lambast your opponent before you even bother to understand what he's saying.

If you knew what Wilson taught, you wouldn't say the things that you do. You've just managed to build a straw-man you enjoy attacking, and you named it "Douglas Wilson". But Wilson himself doesn't believe at all like the straw-man you have erected.

In short, your characture of him is false.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> The overseeing body here on this forum is the RPCGA; Federal Vision is heresy. . . .
> 
> The board has no official rule per se on discussing Wilson. However, we are against components of the discussions that promote the heresy.



Shame on you (and the RPCGA micro-denomination) for calling it heresy! It is an in-house debate, and all of us are free to disagree with it. But until you can state the FV position in a way which THEY would agree with, then you have no business critiquing it.

Understand them first. THEN you can decide whether they are orthodox or not.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Draw the line as you see fit, but be cautios as we will be watching.



Nice threat. Am I supposed to be impressed? You're basically saying, "Slander the same people we do, or we'll kick you out of our little club." Please. Grow up! 

You can kick me off the board if you want, but what would it prove? . . . that you have the keys to the PB kingdom, and so I'll only be able to play in the land of BibleLighthouse and Monergism.com? Believe me, I am not the only person on the PB who has observed the irresponsible, nonsensical, and arbitrary ways you have gone about kicking people off the board in the past. So banning me merely because I say the FV is an in-house debate will merely serve to solidify this opinion in the minds of many, both on this board and off. I do not promote the FV, so what are you so worried about? It would really tick you off to meet all the FV advocates in heaven, wouldn't it?

I have not been promoting the FV on this thread. Nor do I have any desire to do so. So you and your buddies can rest easy.

I don't promote Lutheranism, but I will certainly step up to the plate to defend Lutherans against charges of heresy.

I don't promote Arminianism, but I will certainly step up to the plate to defend Arminians against the charges of heresy.

I don't promote Congregationalism, but I will certainly step up to the plate to defend non-Presbyterians against the charges of heresy.

etc., etc., etc. . . . .

The Federal Vision is no different. I am no more a Federal Visionist than I am a Lutheran or an Episcopalian. But if you dare to call Lutheranism a heresy, or Arminianism a heresy, or FV a heresy, etc., then you are guilty of slander, and you make yourself an enemy of Christ's church. Unity with brothers who differ with us does FAR more to further the cause of Christ than does the hurling of petty anathemas.



Check out some of the recent threads on Arminianism. I have defended the Arminians. I have made it clear that they ARE Christians and they ARE going to Heaven despite their error. I gladly fight for them, and I defend them against charges of heresy, even though I personally disagree with them VERY strongly. I am a hard-nosed dyed-in-the-wool 5-point Calvinist. But that doesn't keep me from defending the Arminians from slanderous charges of heresy.

Likewise, I will defend the FV people from charges of heresy. They ARE Christians, and they ARE going to Heaven, despite any theological error. Their error is not critical to salvation. But my defense of the FV people does not make me a FV-promoter, any more than my defense of Arminians makes me an Arminian.

So please get your categories straight! Just because I say someone is going to Heaven, does NOT mean I agree with that person on all points.





[Edited on 4-9-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Arch2k

I am locking this thread, and let me be absolutely clear why:

Some of the comments made here violate the rules of the Puritanboard, mainly that "all discussion must be done with respect to others." This thread has degenerated to a point where we can no longer debate the intended subject in a civil manner and we can't play nice anymore.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> If Wilson is being 'cute', and knows the difference between orthodoxy and illicit in regards to justification, shame on him for being cryptic to the confusion of Gods saints!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is not cryptic. He has said nothing unorthodox concerning justification. He believes in _sola fide_ like you and me. There just happen to be a number of people (such as yourself) who have a "Ready, Fire, Aim" mentality. Instead of being responsible, you just lambast your opponent before you even bother to understand what he's saying.
> 
> If you knew what Wilson taught, you wouldn't say the things that you do. You've just managed to build a straw-man you enjoy attacking, and you named it "Douglas Wilson". But Wilson himself doesn't believe at all like the straw-man you have erected.
> 
> In short, your characture of him is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> The overseeing body here on this forum is the RPCGA; Federal Vision is heresy. . . .
> 
> The board has no official rule per se on discussing Wilson. However, we are against components of the discussions that promote the heresy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shame on you (and the RPCGA micro-denomination) for calling it heresy! It is an in-house debate, and all of us are free to disagree with it. But until you can state the FV position in a way which THEY would agree with, then you have no business critiquing it.
> 
> Understand them first. THEN you can decide whether they are orthodox or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Draw the line as you see fit, but be cautios as we will be watching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice threat. Am I supposed to be impressed? You're basically saying, "Slander the same people we do, or we'll kick you out of our little club." Please. Grow up!
> 
> You can kick me off the board if you want, but what would it prove? . . . that you have the keys to the PB kingdom, and so I'll only be able to play in the land of BibleLighthouse and Monergism.com? Believe me, I am not the only person on the PB who has observed the irresponsible, nonsensical, and arbitrary ways you have gone about kicking people off the board in the past. So banning me merely because I say the FV is an in-house debate will merely serve to solidify this opinion in the minds of many, both on this board and off. I do not promote the FV, so what are you so worried about? It would really tick you off to meet all the FV advocates in heaven, wouldn't it?
> 
> I have not been promoting the FV on this thread. Nor do I have any desire to do so. So you and your buddies can rest easy.
> 
> I don't promote Lutheranism, but I will certainly step up to the plate to defend Lutherans against charges of heresy.
> 
> I don't promote Arminianism, but I will certainly step up to the plate to defend Arminians against the charges of heresy.
> 
> I don't promote Congregationalism, but I will certainly step up to the plate to defend non-Presbyterians against the charges of heresy.
> 
> etc., etc., etc. . . . .
> 
> The Federal Vision is no different. I am no more a Federal Visionist than I am a Lutheran or an Episcopalian. But if you dare to call Lutheranism a heresy, or Arminianism a heresy, or FV a heresy, etc., then you are guilty of slander, and you make yourself an enemy of Christ's church. Unity with brothers who differ with us does FAR more to further the cause of Christ than does the hurling of petty anathemas.
> 
> 
> 
> Check out some of the recent threads on Arminianism. I have defended the Arminians. I have made it clear that they ARE Christians and they ARE going to Heaven despite their error. I gladly fight for them, and I defend them against charges of heresy, even though I personally disagree with them VERY strongly. I am a hard-nosed dyed-in-the-wool 5-point Calvinist. But that doesn't keep me from defending the Arminians from slanderous charges of heresy.
> 
> Likewise, I will defend the FV people from charges of heresy. They ARE Christians, and they ARE going to Heaven, despite any theological error. Their error is not critical to salvation. But my defense of the FV people does not make me a FV-promoter, any more than my defense of Arminians makes me an Arminian.
> 
> So please get your categories straight! Just because I say someone is going to Heaven, does NOT mean I agree with that person on all points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 4-9-2006 by biblelighthouse]
Click to expand...


Joseph,
Dordt leveled the charge of heresy to Arminianism; it's historic fact. Is this new stuff for you? No one ever said that that every single Arminian whom ever was born is in hell. If the Arminian is trusting in anything but Christ for their salvation, they have or will assurely perish. To take any other position is contrary to historic reformed thinking. My church and our overseeing body, the "micro denominational" RPCGA calls FedVis heresy. Hence, administratively, this boards position as well.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Sorry I got into this so late - I've been very busy. I would have stopped this a long time ago.



> Shame on you (and the RPCGA micro-denomination) for calling it heresy!



The RPCGA is in control of this board. 

As already stated, no Federal Vision theology will be propagated on the board.

I'm not sure where you lost sight of that again.

There has been and there is AMPLE theological correspondence between Wilson, Schlissel, Jordan, and others etc., with the orthodox Presbyterian denominations such as the PCA, OPC, RPCGA, RPCNA, URC, and many others who have personally not only contacted these men, but have sat in colloquiums debating with them. One can quickly turn to the published papers of the Knox Seminary Colloquium and find the Federal Vision espousing theological garbage. No simple trite answer is going to overshadow the hundreds of theological papers and thousands of emails that have corresponded between a number of these advocates, and would simply be STUPID to say that one has all the info they need. Personally, I don't even have all that I would like to have in terms of the emailing that went on between Wilson and Phillips for over two years, though I was privy to the information. A credo here or a credo there is not going to clean up the big mess spilled by these guys, and some more blatantly than others. They can't "clarify" what they need to repent of. They first need to repent of their heretical views, and then clarify what they mistakingly said and did not mean. But you will never see that, except God-willing.

In any case, The Federal Vision won't be defended here. Sorry. That the board's official stance.

_______________________________________

As a further note, I recieved this email from an outsider who is watching as well:

_______________________________________

"Well... You can't even keep FV heresy out of your own forum let alone your mainstream Presbyterian churches...
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=17330&page=2

Look how brazen Joseph Gleason is. Look how petulant in declaring everybody wrong but his - it has to be said - cult leader Doug Wilson. This is a cult-bonded individual you're witnessing. Look how he is turning minds too! Look how they soften people and make their infiltration into minds by degree. Look how they NEVER concede ANYTHING. Look at the ENERGY with which they make their attack.

Of course heresy is taking over the visible churches. I mean the last remaining bastions of biblical doctrine. It's the end times and the devil has the upper hand. Look how you can't even keep it out of your own forum. By the way: havn't you banned numerous people for about an infinity of worse things on your forum?"

__________________________________________

This should cause the posters in the thread to think heartily about what a witness they gave.



[Edited on 4-9-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

*John Calvin*, On the Subject of "MERIT"

John Calvin: By way of addition this question also should be explained. There are certain perversely subtle men who Â— even though they confess that we receive salvation through Christ Â— cannot bear to hear the word Â“merit,Â” for they think that it obscures GodÂ’s grace. Hence, they would have Christ as a mere instrument or minister, not as the Author or leader and prince of life, as Peter calls him [Acts 3:15]. Indeed, I admit, if anyone would simply set Christ by himself over against GodÂ’s judgment, there will be no place for merit. For no worthiness will be found in man to deserve GodÂ’s favor. Indeed, as Augustine very truly writes: Â“The clearest light of predestination and grace is the Man Christ Jesus, the Savior, who brought this to pass by the human nature that was in him, through no preceding merits of works or of faith. Answer me, I beg of you, whence did that man deserve to be the only-begotten Son of God, and to be assumed into unity of person by the Word co-eternal with the Father? We must therefore recognize our Head as the very foundation of grace Â— a grace that is diffused from him through all his members according to the measure of each. Everyone is made a Christian from the beginning of his faith by the same grace whereby that Man from his beginning became the Christ.Â” Likewise, in another passage: Â“There is no more illustrious example of predestination than the Mediator himself. For he who made righteous this man of the seed of David, never to be unrighteous, without any merit of his will preceding, of unrighteous makes righteous those who are members of that Head,Â” etc. In discussing ChristÂ’s merit, we do not consider the beginning of merit to be in him, but we go back to GodÂ’s ordinance, the first cause. For God solely of his own good pleasure appointed him Mediator to obtain salvation for us.
*Hence it is absurd to set ChristÂ’s merit against GodÂ’s mercy. For it is a common rule that a thing subordinate to another is not in conflict with it. For this reason nothing hinders us from asserting that men are freely justified by GodÂ’s mercy alone, and at the same time that ChristÂ’s merit, subordinate to GodÂ’s mercy, also intervenes on our behalf. Both GodÂ’s free favor and ChristÂ’s obedience, each in its degree, are fitly opposed to our works. Apart from GodÂ’s good pleasure Christ could not merit anything; but did so because he had been appointed to appease GodÂ’s wrath with his sacrifice, and to blot out our transgressions with his obedience. To sum up: inasmuch as ChristÂ’s merit depends upon GodÂ’s grace alone, which has ordained this manner of salvation for us, it is just as properly opposed to all human righteousness as GodÂ’s grace is.* Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book II.17.1, pp. 528-529.

John Calvin: *For if righteousness consists in the observance of the law, who will deny that Christ merited favor for us when, by taking that burden upon himself, he reconciled us to God as if we had kept the law?* Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book II.17.1, pp. 528-529.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

*Furthermore...*

_And as for his other quote, deprecating the term "merit", the context is that of putting down any *human work* as "meritorious._

John Calvin: I must first make these prefatory remarks concerning the term Â“meritÂ”: whoever first applied it to menÂ’s works over against GodÂ’s judgment provided very badly for sincere faith. Of course, I would like to avoid verbal battles, but I wish that Christian writers had always exercised such restraint as not to take it into their heads needlessly to use terms foreign to Scripture that would produce great offense and very little fruit. Why, I ask, was there need to drag in the term Â“meritÂ” when the value of good works could without offense have been meaningfully explained by another term? How much offense this term contains is clear from the great damage it has done to the world. Surely, as it is a most prideful term, it can do nothing but obscure GodÂ’s favor and imbue men with perverse haughtiness.
I admit that the ancient writers of the church commonly used it, and would that they had not given posterity occasion for error by their misuse of one little word! Nevertheless, in some passages they also testify that they did not intend to prejudice the truth. For in one place Augustine speaks thus: Â“Let *human merits*, which perished through Adam, here keep silence, and let GodÂ’s grace reign through Jesus Christ.Â” Again: Â“The saints attribute nothing to their *merits*; they will attribute all to thy mercy alone, O God.Â” Again: Â“And when man sees that all the good that he has, he has not from himself but from his God, he sees that all that is praiseworthy in himself arises *not from his own merits* but from GodÂ’s mercy.Â” *You see that Augustine, when he has denied to man the power of well-doing, also overthrows any worth of merit.* Moreover, Chrysostom says: Â“Our works, if there are any that follow the freely given call of God, are repayment and debt, but GodÂ’s gifts are grace and beneficence and great generosity.Â”
But laying aside the term, let us rather look at the thing itself. Previously, indeed, I cited a statement from Bernard: Â“As it is sufficient for merit not to presume concerning merit, so to lack merits is sufficient for judgment.Â” But he immediately adds his interpretation, in which he sufficiently softens the harshness of the utterance by saying: Â“Accordingly, take care to *have merits*. When you have *them*, know that *they* have been *given*. Hope for fruit, the mercy of God, and you have escaped all peril of poverty, ungratefulness, and presumption. Happy is the church that lacks neither merits without presumption nor presumption without merits.Â” And a little before, he had abundantly shown the godly sense in which he had used the word. Â“For why,Â” he asks, Â“should the church concern itself with merits when it has a firmer and more secure reason to glory in GodÂ’s purpose? God cannot deny himself; he will do what he has promised [cf. 2 Timothy 2:13]. Thus you have no reason to ask, Â‘By what merits may we hope for benefits?Â’Especially since you hear: Â‘It is not for your sake... but for mineÂ’ [Ezekiel 36:22,32 p.]. For merit, it suffices to know that merits do not suffice.Â” Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book III.15.2, pp. 789-790.

_Thus, what Calvin wishes had never been was the use of "merit" as any term dealing with sin-tainted human action. It has no bearing on Christ's work or on Adam prior to the fall._

{quotes courtesy of DTK, _as usual_}

[Edited on 4-10-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------

