# Presbyterian Federal Holiness



## JOwen (Dec 11, 2004)

Dear list,

After several months of not being able to visit or lurk on the Puritanboard, because of life commitments, I am back, but mostly lurking again. But before I do, I would like to draw your attention to a piece I wrote recently for publication on Presbyterian Federal Holiness. 
Much of the Federal Vision debate is over a lack of source reading and documentation (not to mention original exegesis). IT might surprise us to learn that the Westminster Divines were not as far from some of the Federal Visionists as we might think (on the Covenant of Grace that is). 
Posted is a link to my article on Presbyterian Federal Holiness, which, was the position of Manton, Rutherford, Dickson, Gillespie, and so many Westminster era Divines.

http://www.apcvan.ca/Jerblog/Federal.htm

I would be interested in conversing with anyone who finds this subject interesting.

Kind regards to you all,

JOwen


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 11, 2004)

This IS the Reformed position that we have been harping on for years now:

"Rutherford argues for a external and breakable Covenant that is made by baptism and profession only. This is not the true spiritual, real, and unbreakable Covenant of Grace; it is a temporary perceptive membership that is not savingly covenantal."

This is also very true:

[N]othing but a clear discernment of the principles that connect any yet distinguish the Church invisible from the Church visible, and a right application of these to explain the statements of the Word of God on the point, will save us from mistakes fraught with the most ruinous consequences both in doctrine and practice.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 11, 2004)

Matthew,

I have read most of what is out there on the subject and it appears that many Presbyterians today do not believe that the CoW is breakable. It has been my experiance that this comes from the Southern Presbyterian theology, that, for whatever reason, does not wish to make the visible/invisible distinction as prominent as the Scottish. 

As an aside, I see you are a fellow Whitefieldian! Great. I did undergrad and graduate work there, and have recently been invited to do my Th.D with them on "The Preaching Theology of Dr. Martyn Lloyd- Jones". Lord willing I will begin that work after I am ordained in March of 2005. What is your Ph.D subject?

Kind regards,

JOwen


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> Matthew,
> 
> I have read most of what is out there on the subject and it appears that many Presbyterians today do not believe that the [*CoG*] is breakable. It has been my experiance that this comes from the Southern Presbyterian theology, that, for whatever reason, does not wish to make the visible/invisible distinction as prominent as the Scottish.


 
Quite True.



> What is your Ph.D subject?



I am doing it on _Jus Divinum - The Grand Debate between the Presbyterians and Independents at Westminster._

I have finished all my premilimary classes as of This week (about 3500 written pages!), and work for 2005 on the dissertation.

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by webmaster]

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## JohnV (Dec 11, 2004)

> Under the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace, the covenant is not primarily physical with a spiritual component, but primarily spiritual with a physical component....
> 
> ...When we speak of Federal Holiness it should always be in light of its goal- a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, the Elect One. To simply think of Church members as being in confederacy with Christ by baptism and profession is to forget the most vital portion of the equation. Indeed many today are so emphasizing the mere federal element of the Covenant of Grace they are(practically speaking), omitting the weightier matters of the Covenant.
> 
> Inward union is the only true union with Christ. Any substitution of Church-ism in place of the internal operation of the Spirit is to supplant the roll of the Visible Church and turn the gospel on its head. We must be diligent in both our understanding and application of every aspect of Christ's Church and of His gracious covenant.



I just started a study on Law. It is interesting how this fits in with this. There is what we would call "laws of physics" which describe how things are, and cannot be otherwise, and laws of human behaviour, which describes not how humans act, but how they should act. The former implies subservience to law, the latter implies a form of freedom within the law. 

That impinges on the CoW, doesn't it? For it the moral law were like physics laws then we'd still be in Eden. And yet, they are like; it is man that is different than all the rest of creation, in that he was created after the image of God. Now federalism means something, because that freedom is only through Christ by Covenant. If it were not by Covenant, we would have no assurance that it applied to us after the fact. I speak of the freedom that man had in the Garden to not sin, and the freedom we will obtain through Christ to not be able to sin; for as of the Fall we have been free only not to be able not to sin. 

Just thought this was interesting, that's all. I hope you don't mind my thinking out loud. It means, Jerrold, that I agree with your conclusion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 11, 2004)

Let me ask a question. In Romans 2:12 it talks about those who have sinned without the law and those who have sinned with the law. Since our children are born unto us sanctified because we are members in the New Covenant (1Corinthians 7:14, is right to say that they are born under the administration of the siniatic covenant as a school teacher (Galatians 3:23,24( which is an administration of the Covenant of Grace) until they are regenerate if God is willing?
For Christ's Crown and Covenant, R. Martin Snyder


----------



## JohnV (Dec 11, 2004)

> _edited for clarity_
> In Romans 2:12 it talks about those who have sinned without the law and those who have sinned with the law. Since our children are born unto us sanctified because we are members in the New Covenant (1Corinthians 7:14), is it right to say that they are born under the administration of the sinaitic covenant as a school teacher (Galatians 3:23,24), which is an administration of the Covenant of Grace, until they are regenerate if God is willing?



My take on this:

No, for that would then imply circumcision again. The entire Sinaitic Covenant was swallowed up in the New Covenant. The children of the Covenant are really children of the New Covenant, the conditional and breakable aspect of it, while they are called to faith into the unconditional and unbreakable aspect of the same Covenant. 

What might have been mentioned is that God saved us "while we were yet sinners", not after we were justified and sanctified. And He did so under the Covenant of Redemption, the necessarily implied Covenant in the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Election was guaranteed from before the foundation of the earth. And God is God to the faithful and to their children after them.

For all these things to be true, we must accept the administration of the New Covenant for our children as well, and that is why we baptize them, and not circumcise them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 12, 2004)

My point exactly. I thought baptism became our circumcision in the New Covenant. So in effect they have their circumcision in batpism. 

No one can effectually see who is and who isn't purchased by the Covenant of Redemption. The doctirne Covenant of Redemption is something I am sure about. That was between the Son and Father. Our assurance in the Covenant of Redemption, as it applies to us, is the result of our faith. Sometimes, we who are sure need to worry though. Sometimes those who worry have no need to worry.

I am just trying to work out how this internal/external thing works.

I'm still stuck on this John 15:2 verse Scott B. I read Fred Malones response and understand it. He doesn't address the 'in me' part very well.

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy


----------



## JohnV (Dec 12, 2004)

Randy:

I was just running off at the mouth, in my first post, about something I discovered in my studies on law. I was just answering from that perspective. It was remarkable that from two entirely different starting points the result was exactly the same.

All I can say in response to your last post is that our assurance is not a result of our faith, but of God's promises. But I know what you mean, that faith is an assuring sign that these promises have been given to us.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 12, 2004)

> I thought baptism became our circumcision in the New Covenant. So in effect they have their circumcision in batpism.



Not at all. Christ is our circumcision. baptism is the New Covenant sign of covenant inclusion.


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 12, 2004)

Thanks for sharing this article. I really profited from it.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 12, 2004)

Glad it was of some assistance.  Of course the greater problem is found in the Federal Vision doctrine of justification, that seeks to add to the Word of God by way of a final justification. But I guess that is a topic for another time.

Kind regards,
JOwen


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > I thought baptism became our circumcision in the New Covenant. So in effect they have their circumcision in batpism.
> ...



Where does it say that at Matt? I thought it said he circumcised our heart. Baptism seemed to be the physical sign of what had happened spiritually.

P.S.. JOWEN...Were did you get 'The Covenant of Life' at I read that Samuel Rutherford wrote?



[Edited on 12-12-2004 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 12, 2004)

JOwen, 

I found The Covenant of Life on my Puritan CD #6. Just a bit hard to read though. It will be a tough steak to chew. Someone needs to print it. The photo copies have to much bleed through. Great article by the way.


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 13, 2004)

JOwen,

I think it must be said that there is some variety within the Federal Vision camp regarding justification. Wilson's position at least is that "final justification" is the vindication that Paul talks about believers in Christ receiving. Just as Christ was "justified" in being resurrected, we will be "justified" in our glorification in the eyes of the world. Christ's justification is one of the central themes in Peter's Pentecost sermon.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 13, 2004)

Ianterrell,

I agree that there is some latitude amongst the FVists regarding justification. Wilson, being the most orthodox of the bunch in my opinion. This however does not solve Wilson's confusion between forensic justification and demonstrative justification as your post indicates. Truth be known, there is no final justification in the forensic sense what so ever. Soteriological justification is a one time only act of God's free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.
If to listen and read Wilson's Presbytery interview, you will find he is making far too many allowances for a broadened definition of justification. Demonstrative justification does not even belong in the same chapter as forensic, it rightly belongs in chapter 33, "œOf the Last Judgment."

Any thoughts?

Kind regards,

JOwen


----------



## JOwen (Dec 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> JOwen,
> 
> I found The Covenant of Life on my Puritan CD #6. Just a bit hard to read though. It will be a tough steak to chew. Someone needs to print it. The photo copies have to much bleed through. Great article by the way.



Dear brother,

I agree someone needs to print it.:bigsmile: Tell ya what: you type it out, I will publishe it on the net.
howsat' sound? 

Kind regards,

JOwen


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 13, 2004)

JOwen,

I agree with your categorization of justification. I'm not sure if Wilson would disagree however. He seems to acknowledge that there is a particular argument that the WCF is building and justification finds its usage in a rather specific ordo salutis rather than broadly how the term is used in the scriptures. He is right in noting the vindication usage of justification I think that seems to be downplayed for theological clarity.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 13, 2004)

Ianterrell ,

Wilson would agree with what I have said and probably add that the WCF does not go far enough on the subject. I would strongly disagree on this point. Brother Wilson appears to think that the WCF is a wax nose, and for a strict subscriptionist, who makes ZERO exceptions to the WCF in my vows, I find this highly objectionable. 

If you read Manton and Rutherford on James, you will find them making very clear statements on demonstrative justification. I think the purposefully left demonstrative justification out of Chapter 11, FOR theological clarity.

Any thoughts brother?

Kind regards,
JOwen


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Guys - I am one step ahead of you. Bob has been helping me transcribe documents. He just finished SR's Covenant of Life Opened. I am editing it right now and it will be published in book form in the first quarter of the New Year (probably February). So you don't have to read it on CD anymore - you'll have the book in your hand!

Exciting stuff!!


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 13, 2004)

JOwen,

I agree. For the sake of theological clarity and simplicity some issues were not addressed in their fulness. I'm not sure if Wilson would call the WCF a wax nose or that he treats it as such. My problems with Wilson have more to do with the covenant of works, the regulative principle, and though he is not a classic paedocommunionist I think he is a wee bit more loose with the sacrament than I am.

Matt,

I'm really happy about this publication endeavor I hope it is both profitable and a success! I wish that I was able to help out more with donations.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 13, 2004)

JOwen [/quote]

Guys - I am one step ahead of you. Bob has been helping me transcribe documents. He just finished SR's Covenant of Life Opened. I am editing it right now and it will be published in book form in the first quarter of the New Year (probably February). So you don't have to read it on CD anymore - you'll have the book in your hand!

Exciting stuff!! [/quote]

Brilliant!! Let me know when I can order.

JOwen


----------



## JOwen (Dec 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> JOwen,
> 
> I agree. For the sake of theological clarity and simplicity some issues were not addressed in their fulness. I'm not sure if Wilson would call the WCF a wax nose or that he treats it as such. My problems with Wilson have more to do with the covenant of works, the regulative principle, and though he is not a classic paedocommunionist I think he is a wee bit more loose with the sacrament than I am.
> ...


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 13, 2004)

Yes Wilson claims to subscribe to WCF and diverges significantly from it. In matters of polity, baptism, worship, etc.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JOwen_
> ...



Hallelujah. That photocopy is cumbersome and hard to read on my computer. I want the first copy!!!!!!


----------

