# 2 Week FV discussion begins today



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2007)

As GreenBaggins has noted, a two week FV "discussion" begins today, hosted "by De Regnis Christi, an RPCNA pastor, which will feature Douglas Wilson, John Muether, and Richard Lints" and some others (but not Dr. Clark ).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 17, 2007)

What is the point? Are they adding to their aberrations? Maybe they are trying to look more confessional.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2007)

They want someone to talk to, and some folks seem to think they need to accommodate that. It will be interesting to see how this goes. The RPCNA has yet to rule on this correct? Or have they tackled the FV issue yet?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 17, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> They want someone to talk to, and some folks seem to think they need to accommodate that. It will be interesting to see how this goes. The RPCNA has yet to rule on this correct? Or have they tackled the FV issue yet?



I am not sure, but it seems that a few who were RPCNA on this board ended up going FV. I know one went PCA but I am not sure of the other person I knew who slipped into it.


----------



## mvdm (Sep 18, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> They want someone to talk to, and some folks seem to think they need to accommodate that. It will be interesting to see how this goes. The RPCNA has yet to rule on this correct? Or have they tackled the FV issue yet?



The latest Christian Renewal reports that the RPCNA Synod 2007 passed a resolution to form a study committee to review the FV.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 20, 2007)

mvdm said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > They want someone to talk to, and some folks seem to think they need to accommodate that. It will be interesting to see how this goes. The RPCNA has yet to rule on this correct? Or have they tackled the FV issue yet?
> ...


Thanks for the info.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 20, 2007)

BINGO.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 20, 2007)

Just when you were afraid that the FVers might be able to obscure the issue, Jim JOrdan stumbles into the room and makes his typical comments. Priceless.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 20, 2007)

And we have another bull's eye at GreenBaggins.


----------



## Redaimie (Sep 20, 2007)

Has anything good come out of the discussion?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 20, 2007)

Can't say; maybe just that it is even more obvious "more dialog" is not needed?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Sep 20, 2007)

Leithart wrote:

The FV claim is: If the visible church is the body and kingdom of Christ, and baptism is the entry rite into the visible church, then baptism joins the baptized to the body of Christ and makes him or her a subject of His kingdom. Baptism makes the baptized a member of the more-than-human community of the church; baptism makes the baptized a member of the body of Christ, which really is the body of Christ, that is to say, the human community joined to the Incarnate Son through the Spirit. Visible church, again | De Regno Christi <<

Would appreciate your critique of of this gentlemen.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 20, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Just when you were afraid that the FVers might be able to obscure the issue, Jim JOrdan stumbles into the room and makes his typical comments. Priceless.



You got to love him though!  He's great just for the entertainment value.


----------



## bradofshaw (Sep 20, 2007)

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Leithart wrote:
> 
> The FV claim is: If the visible church is the body and kingdom of Christ, and baptism is the entry rite into the visible church, then baptism joins the baptized to the body of Christ and makes him or her a subject of His kingdom. Baptism makes the baptized a member of the more-than-human community of the church; baptism makes the baptized a member of the body of Christ, which really is the body of Christ, that is to say, the human community joined to the Incarnate Son through the Spirit. Visible church, again | De Regno Christi <<
> 
> Would appreciate your critique of of this gentlemen.



And this one as well (also from Leithart):



> _This brings us to the third problem of assurance: OK, so God is addressing me in Word and Sacrament. And I have to believe. But how do I know that my faith is real, really real, and not the temporary faith that might later be choked by the world? Call the one who raises this question Doubter 3.
> 
> To Doubter 3, I want to say simply: Keep listening to the word, believe it, consider yourself dead to sin, trust that God is feeding you at the table, pray for stronger faith and for perseverance. Don’t stand to the side of your relationship with God and try to find assurance in a scientific third-person examination. Stand before God, as He offers Himself in His Word and Sacrament, and trust Him. Throw yourself on the mercy of God, because there is no foundation more secure than that._


----------



## MW (Sep 20, 2007)

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Leithart wrote:
> 
> The FV claim is: If the visible church is the body and kingdom of Christ, and baptism is the entry rite into the visible church, then baptism joins the baptized to the body of Christ and makes him or her a subject of His kingdom. Baptism makes the baptized a member of the more-than-human community of the church; baptism makes the baptized a member of the body of Christ, which really is the body of Christ, that is to say, the human community joined to the Incarnate Son through the Spirit. Visible church, again | De Regno Christi <<
> 
> Would appreciate your critique of of this gentlemen.



I will quote an old author, and then show the differences between the FV and traditional Presbyterianism.



> Fergusson: Not only particular believers, but also whole visible churches, are in Christ, though in a much different way: real believers are in him savingly, so as to be freed from condemnation by him, Rom. 8:1; being knit to him by the band of saving faith, Eph. 3:17, and receiving the influence of saving graces from him, John 7:38, 39. Again, visible churches are in Christ in the respects presently mentioned, only as to the better part of them, and with regard had to real believers, who always are among them; but besides this, the whole bulk of visible churches, and of visible church-members, are in Christ, so, as they enjoy from him outward privileges and divine ordinances, Ps. 147:19, 20; the communication of common gifts from the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 12:8; and some measure of divine protection more than the rest of the world, Isa. 27:2, 3; and these all by virtue of their union with him; the bond whereof is the profession of his name, and of those substantial truths which relate unto him either personally or parentally; which external union betwixt Christ and the visible church is sealed up by baptism: “the churches of Judea, which were in Christ.” (Epistles, 26.)



Like the FV, traditional Presbyterians maintain that baptism is an initiatory sacrament, and unites to Christ in the sense of sealing entrance into the visible church. But unlike the FV, traditional Presbyterianism points to the fact that only "real" believers enjoy the saving benefits of Christ. Church-members enjoy benefits, but they are "outward," not "spiritual." Finally, the union itself is noted as being "external." FVers like Leithart do not make these distinctions, but speak of all in the church being partakers of spiritual benefits through union with Christ. Hence they confound things which historic Presbyterian thought has distinguished.


----------



## MW (Sep 20, 2007)

bradofshaw said:


> And this one as well (also from Leithart):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problem here is that the WCF has a whole chapter devoted to the question of assurance, and at no point does the FVist's idea coincide with it. The WCF maintains a biblical balance between the objective and subjective aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit. The FVist transports the subjective aspect to the realm of participation in the means of grace. Hereby external criteria are made the test of a work of the Spirit of God within a man's heart. Whereas the WCF correctly upholds internal criteria in accord with the biblical view, that the Spirit beareth witness _with our spirit_ that we are the children of God, Rom. 8:16. The FVist has no corresponding means of discerning this internal witness.


----------



## Gryphonette (Sep 20, 2007)

*What I can't figure out is what he makes of 2 Cor. 13:5...*



> And this one as well (also from Leithart):
> 
> _This brings us to the third problem of assurance: OK, so God is addressing me in Word and Sacrament. And I have to believe. But how do I know that my faith is real, really real, and not the temporary faith that might later be choked by the world? Call the one who raises this question Doubter 3.
> 
> To Doubter 3, I want to say simply: Keep listening to the word, believe it, consider yourself dead to sin, trust that God is feeding you at the table, pray for stronger faith and for perseverance. Don’t stand to the side of your relationship with God and try to find assurance in a scientific third-person examination. Stand before God, as He offers Himself in His Word and Sacrament, and trust Him. Throw yourself on the mercy of God, because there is no foundation more secure than that._


"Test yourselves [to see] if you are in the faith. *Examine* yourselves. Or do you not recognize for yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless you fail the test."

Isn't this precisely the opposite of the advice given? Mind, his last sentence is inarguable, and right on the money: "_Throw yourself on the mercy of God, because there is no foundation more secure than that." 

_Still, Paul wasn't giving the same counsel as Pastor Leithart.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Sep 21, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> > Leithart wrote:
> ...



Thanks for the quote from Fergusson Rev. Winzer. It's helpful.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 22, 2007)

Excepting the 'usual suspects' type stuff as noted already, I think some of this is turning out to be instructive. Hart is very on point I think in his comments. That said, I'm still not sure how many forums should be continued to be afforded the FV advocates. I mean, how much rope do you need from these guys to hang themselves? 



NaphtaliPress said:


> As GreenBaggins has noted, a two week FV "discussion" begins today, hosted "by De Regnis Christi, an RPCNA pastor, which will feature Douglas Wilson, John Muether, and Richard Lints" and some others (but not Dr. Clark ).


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 22, 2007)

Dear Matthew,

Thanks for the clear explanation of the differences between the FV and classical Presbyterianism.



armourbearer said:


> [...] Church-members enjoy benefits, but they are "outward," not "spiritual." [...]



It's interesting that John Owen seems to have a half-way house explanation between this. He's willing to admit that the Spirit does a work in church members who ultimately aren't true believers. The Spirit works incompletely in them, working a legal faith, not a true faith. Indeed, Owen argues that they even exercise spiritual gifts! His proof is Matt. 7:22 "Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name", prophesy being a spiritual gift. I was a little taken back when I first read Owen saying this.

God bless.


----------



## Gryphonette (Sep 22, 2007)

How does "did we not prophesy in your name" necessitate the presence of Spirit-given spiritual gifts?

_Anyone_ can "prophesy" and attach Christ's name to it, after all.

If the Holy Spirit _does_, in fact, work temporarily in people so they have legitimate reason to believe they're regenerated, then the FV is right.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 22, 2007)

I think it is interesting that FV moves the divide from what we can see versus what we can't (visible/invisible Church) to within God's decree itself (elect to covenant/elect to salvation).


----------



## lwadkins (Sep 22, 2007)

The FV folks will likely not accept correction and will continue to attempt to gather a following. I don’t see this changing. Critical evaluation will continue to fall on deaf ears. In spite of that, the conversation provides opportunity to mitigate the influence they attempt to exert.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 23, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> How does "did we not prophesy in your name" necessitate the presence of Spirit-given spiritual gifts?
> 
> _Anyone_ can "prophesy" and attach Christ's name to it, after all.



Well the verse seems to suggest that the prophecy is not fake:

Matt 7:22 (NIV) Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 

It's not just people who prophesy in Christ's name but also people who cast out demons (in Christ's name) and perform many miracles. The context would suggest that these people really did prophecy, exorcise, and work miracles with reference to Christ but actually weren't truly converted.



Gryphonette said:


> If the Holy Spirit _does_, in fact, work temporarily in people so they have legitimate reason to believe they're regenerated, then the FV is right.



No there's a slight difference on Owen's view. He would believe they are not truly regenerate, it's not a temporary but a true work of the Spirit that brings about a true new birth.

On Owen's view the faith these non-regenerate people have is not true but partial (it's what he calls a "legal" faith, just one that sits in the head and not the heart as well). And these people are actually self-deceived about their Christianity. Hence, the Puritan call to test our faith _per_:

2Cor 13:5 (NIV) Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test? 

Blessings.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 23, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> What is the point? Are they adding to their aberrations? Maybe they are trying to look more confessional.





fredtgreco said:


> Just when you were afraid that the FVers might be able to obscure the issue, Jim JOrdan stumbles into the room and makes his typical comments. Priceless.





> _Partial comments quote from Broken? Fixed? Whatever | De Regno Christi by James Jordan_
> 
> I’m not interested in recovering the sinfulness of harmonizing when we sing, or of having musical instruments, or of using misleading phrases like “covenant of works.” And so perhaps I’ve no business in this conversation.



Sounds more like some of them are becoming emblazoned.

Gotta love that Greenbaggins.


----------



## MW (Sep 23, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> It's interesting that John Owen seems to have a half-way house explanation between this. He's willing to admit that the Spirit does a work in church members who ultimately aren't true believers. The Spirit works incompletely in them, working a legal faith, not a true faith. Indeed, Owen argues that they even exercise spiritual gifts! His proof is Matt. 7:22 "Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name", prophesy being a spiritual gift. I was a little taken back when I first read Owen saying this.



That's true, Marty. I think Owen is only saying that the Spirit stirs up natural reason and conscience, but does not renew it. In that sense it would fall short of being "spiritual" in the biblical sense as the Puritans understood it.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 23, 2007)

It's also important to remember that Owen saw the Spirit at work in ways in which moderns don't consider. He lists under the works of the Spirit "exalting the abilities of men" and includes under this rubric political abilities (e.g. Solomon, Saul's entrance to the kingship), moral abilities like courage (Gideon, Jeptheth) and intellectual abilities (e.g. Bezaleel and Aholiab).


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Sep 23, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> It's also important to remember that Owen saw the Spirit at work in ways in which moderns don't consider. He lists under the works of the Spirit "exalting the abilities of men" and includes under this rubric political abilities (e.g. Solomon, Saul's entrance to the kingship), moral abilities like courage (Gideon, Jeptheth) and intellectual abilities (e.g. Bezaleel and Aholiab).



Thanks for this Mr. Greco... I think this is spot on...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 26, 2007)

Whoa, ho, ho. Isn't this special, and rather revealing?
Biblicism and Tradition in the Dogmatomachy | De Regno Christi



> CBrown
> September 26th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
> 
> I guess I’d like to know more about Jim Jordan’s church affiliation. Who is this guy? I’d like to know what church he represents, since he’s such a high churchman.
> ...


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Sep 26, 2007)

That's typical of James Jordan to respond in such a way. He called me "stupid" on Blog and Mablog recently when I suggested that his doctrine of temporary faith and election reminded me of Rome.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 26, 2007)

Congratulations. Welcome to the PB btw.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Sep 26, 2007)

Thanks!


----------



## Gryphonette (Sep 26, 2007)

*He will surely regret posting that, if he hasn't done so already.*



> James Jordan
> September 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
> 
> If you don’t know who I am, you have no business in a discussion of the Federal Vision. Please, don’t come in here and offer opinions on things you know nothing about!


This is doubtless a dumb question but, well, who IS he? I keep hearing his name over the past few years as the FV has grown, but I'm unclear on precisely who he is? Is he a pastor, like Steve Wilkins? Is he a theologian on staff at a seminary somewhere or other? 

Obviously he thinks he's hot stuff, but I don't actually know much of anything about him, and his response (ordained in the ARC and a member of a CREC church) doesn't provide significant illumination.


----------



## jbergsing (Sep 26, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> it is even more obvious "more dialog" is not needed




Since the PCA GA, I've been wondering what will come of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church's affiliation with the PCA. Any thoughts?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Sep 26, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> This is doubtless a dumb question but, well, who IS he? I keep hearing his name over the past few years as the FV has grown, but I'm unclear on precisely who he is? Is he a pastor, like Steve Wilkins? Is he a theologian on staff at a seminary somewhere or other?



There was a letter from him in Christian Renewal a while back indicating that he teaches at Biblical Theological Seminary in St. Petersburg, Russia.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 26, 2007)

Sounds like dear old James doesn't know what the Federal Vision is either, so who is he to say someone shouldn't be involved with the discussion. 



> And so perhaps I’ve no business in this conversation. But then, if that’s what the issue is, *then I don’t think the supposed FV, whatever it is*, ever had any interest in reviving that kind of RC. God has 99.99% of His believers in “non-Reformed” churches these days, and that’s got to be significant.



That was the rest of the quote on his criticism of Reformed Christianity taken from his response to the blog entry broken-fixed-whatever

Poor old James.... He just can't get out of his own way, can he?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 26, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> > James Jordan
> > September 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
> >
> > If you don’t know who I am, you have no business in a discussion of the Federal Vision. Please, don’t come in here and offer opinions on things you know nothing about!
> ...



He is not a pastor, although he has done some kind of church work for the past 30+ years. He has a writing ministry under the auspices of several local churches. His writing output is HUGE. 

He was writing and saying this stuff in the seventies. Technically, it's not new. 

I have met him a number of times. While I don't agree with much of what he said, he is a gifted speaker and does interact with the text. I have seen friends discuss biblical issues with him in person and in the conversation he will force you to be on your exegetical/biblical theological toes. 

Am I defending him? No, not necessarily. Just offering my observations.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 26, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > it is even more obvious "more dialog" is not needed
> ...



I am not PCA, and the following is oversimplifying, but at one time when the issue was raised th e only way to remove AAPC from the PCA was to bring a charge against the whole Presbytery (which I gather is very hard to do). Things might have changed now.


----------



## Gryphonette (Sep 26, 2007)

*Has he been denying permanent, individual regeneration since the 70s?*



> He is not a pastor, although he has done some kind of church work for the past 30+ years. He has a writing ministry under the auspices of several local churches. His writing output is HUGE.
> 
> He was writing and saying this stuff in the seventies. Technically, it's not new.


Maybe I'm showing my ignorance, but I'd been under the impression that individual, permanent regeneration is pretty well foundational WRT Reformed soteriology. I would have thought it's a requirement for being considered Reformed/Calvinist. 

Have I been wrong all these years?


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 26, 2007)

James Jordan has been around for a long time. He was involved with that fiasco in Tyler TX. It was a real mess. As J. has noted he is a voracious writer. You can check out some of his stuff at his Biblical Horizons web site. All in all its pretty fringe stuff. Without the web I don't think anyone would pay much attention to him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 26, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> > He is not a pastor, although he has done some kind of church work for the past 30+ years. He has a writing ministry under the auspices of several local churches. His writing output is HUGE.
> >
> > He was writing and saying this stuff in the seventies. Technically, it's not new.
> 
> ...



What I meant was that the FV ideas are not "just recent like of only 5 years ago since Jordan was writing them 35 years ago (and that is not even mentioning Schilder from early 20th century)." No, I am not denying regeneratioon or the reformed doctrines.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Sep 26, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> What I meant was that the FV ideas are not "just recent like of only 5 years ago since Jordan was writing them 35 years ago (and that is not even mentioning Schilder from early 20th century)." No, I am not denying regeneratioon or the reformed doctrines.



I don't really think it's fair to lump Schilder in with "FV ideas." His views on the covenant may have some superficial affinities to some FV formulations, but that's as far it goes. He was orthodox on justification, was not a postmillenialist, and did not hold to paedocommunion.


----------



## MW (Sep 26, 2007)

Guido's Brother said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > What I meant was that the FV ideas are not "just recent like of only 5 years ago since Jordan was writing them 35 years ago (and that is not even mentioning Schilder from early 20th century)." No, I am not denying regeneratioon or the reformed doctrines.
> ...



Judging from the Schilder/Hoeksema exchange, Schilder held the external/internal covenant idea as represented in the earlier quotation by Fergusson and historic Presbyterianism. Would this be a fair assessment?


----------



## jbergsing (Sep 26, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I am not PCA, and the following is oversimplifying, but at one time when the issue was raised th e only way to remove AAPC from the PCA was to bring a charge against the whole Presbytery (which I gather is very hard to do). Things might have changed now.


WOW, I didn't realize it would take something that serious. But from their perspective, why would they want to stay at this point? Wouldn't they want to move their denominational affiliation to something that more resembles their beliefs? (I'm not sure who adheres to the FV/NPP teachings so I have no idea where they would go?)


----------



## Guido's Brother (Sep 26, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Judging from the Schilder/Hoeksema exchange, Schilder held the external/internal covenant idea as represented in the earlier quotation by Fergusson and historic Presbyterianism. Would this be a fair assessment?



My reading of Schilder suggests that he in fact rejects the external/internal distinction in the covenant and instead works with a different distinction. There are still two ways of being in the covenant: legally and vitally (same as Geerhardus Vos, Louis Berkhof and Herman Bavinck). 

There's a great essay on this here.

With respect to the covenant of works, Schilder emphasized the continuity with the covenant of grace, but yet allowed for differences and did indicate that these two could be described as separate covenants. His views on this are more nuanced than some allow. 

I'm not interested in defending Schilder on these points. I'm just describing his position.


----------



## Gryphonette (Sep 26, 2007)

*I didn't think YOU were. Denying permanent, individual regeneration, that is.*



> What I meant was that the FV ideas are not "just recent like of only 5 years ago since Jordan was writing them 35 years ago (and that is not even mentioning Schilder from early 20th century)." No, I am not denying regeneratioon or the reformed doctrines.


But Jordan's on record as denying it; from a footnote (#21) in the Mississippi Valley report on the FV/NPP:



> "The Bible does not teach that some people receive incorruptible new hearts, i.e., that some people are as individuals 'regenerated.'" "My thesis is that there is no such thing as 'regeneration' in the sense in which Reformed theology since Dort has spoken of it. The Bible says nothing about a permanent change in the hearts of those elected to heaven." "My position: everyone who is baptized has been given the same thing. No one has been given a permanently changed "regenerated heart," James Jordan, Thoughts on Sovereign Grace and Regeneration: Some Tentative Explorations," Occasional Paper No. 32 (Niceville, Fla.: Biblical Horizons, 2003), 1, 7, 7, as quoted by Carl D. Robbins, "The Reformed Doctrine of Regeneration," in The Auburn Avenue Theology, 164.


Unless my understanding of the doctrines of sovereign grace is completely whoppy-jawed, what Jordan said in those quotes is in no way compatible with them.

Yet I've been told he's scheduled to be a speaker at a PCA church before too long. 

Why? Why would a PCA church want someone to come who denies individual, permanent regeneration?

BTW, that last bit's directed at _whoever_ might have a theory.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 26, 2007)

And I didn't mean to attack Schilder or say such about him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 26, 2007)

No problem. The drawback to internet communication. 



Gryphonette said:


> > What I meant was that the FV ideas are not "just recent like of only 5 years ago since Jordan was writing them 35 years ago (and that is not even mentioning Schilder from early 20th century)." No, I am not denying regeneratioon or the reformed doctrines.
> 
> 
> But Jordan's on record as denying it; from a footnote (#21) in the Mississippi Valley report on the FV/NPP:
> ...


----------



## MW (Sep 26, 2007)

Guido's Brother said:


> There's a great essay on this here.



Thankyou, it is a very good clarifying essay. I fully agree Schilder does not belong with the FV, because of the distinctions he made. Only I would submit that legal/vital is all that is really meant by external/internal covenanting in the language of traditional reformed theologians. The external covenanting is "in foro Dei," which alleviates Berkhof's difficulty. It may be that by Berkhof's time it had come to mean nothing more than what takes place in foro ecclesiae; but the old theologians had no problem with using terms like election and union with Christ with reference to external covenanting.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 26, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> It's also important to remember that Owen saw the Spirit at work in ways in which moderns don't consider. He lists under the works of the Spirit "exalting the abilities of men" and includes under this rubric political abilities (e.g. Solomon, Saul's entrance to the kingship), moral abilities like courage (Gideon, Jeptheth) and intellectual abilities (e.g. Bezaleel and Aholiab).



Dear Fred, that is true, especially when it comes to the work of the Spirit in the OT for Owen. However, when he speaks of the reprobate exercising spiritual gifts (in a new covenant context) that's altogether another thing. Spiritual gifts edify the church.

For example, I have a friend who 15 years ago led many many people to the Lord as a church worker. My friend also discipled them in bible study for a few years. However, my friend no longer names the name of Christ and has no contact with the church or Christians. The people that my friend led to Christ and discipled are still going on in the Lord. This is one of many stories I could recount (some who led people to the Lord and discipled them also died no longer professing Christ).

How do we interpret this? For what it's worth I suspect they never were Christians, but God in his inscrutable ways used them nonetheless to build his church. That's basically Owen's take as well.


----------

