Mike Horton & Douglas Wilson discuss Federal Theology

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by kceaster
Does it bother anyone else about the covenant of works not being meritorious?

To me, there seems an undeniable link between the first and second Adam that requires both sides to be meritorious. If you take away one, must you not take away the other?

Besides, wouldn't the WCF agree to a meritorious COW? I know the CT of Witsius does.

This puzzles me more than anything else Wilson has said. If Adam did not merit, then isn't God's plan of salvation to restore us to the garden?

In Christ,

KC

A non-meritorious Covenant of Works in the context of God's gracious entrance into covenant (cf. WCF 7.1) causes extreme soteriological problems in any form of Federal Theology. If one is willing to abandon Federal Theology, then I suppose that this could work, or if one winds up with an odd Covenant of Grace theology (a-la John Murray), then one could maintain a strict orthodoxy soteriology (witness Murray as the definitive writer on the ordo)
 
An example of the theology that desires to make repentance an instrument of salvation and justification:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/message/26228

Absolutely. This is a direct attack on sola fide - which after all is a direct reference to faith as the alone instrument of justification. Repentance and new obedience are not, and cannot be, instruments of justification:

Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love. (WCF 11.2)

We believe that we are made partakers of this justification by faith alone, as it is written: He suffered for our salvation, that whosoever believes on him should not perish (French Confession XX)

Q60: How are you righteous before God?
A60: Only by true faith in Jesus Christ:
Q61: Why do you say that you are righteous by faith only?
A61: Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God; and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other way than by faith only. (Heidelberg Catechism)

Woe to them that call good evil, and evil good.

[Edited on 12/20/2004 by fredtgreco]
 
I've read a lot of Doug Wilson -- books and articles. Some of it's great; some not so. I've also heard him speak. I know of nothing to which he holds that could be classified as damnable heresy. His personal view of justification and imputation (regardless of what his cohorts may believe) is orthodox. My primary complaint would be that he moves positions too quickly to be taken seriously as the discerning leader he appears to want to be seen as. It wasn't that long ago that he was an arminian Southern Baptist. It was even less time ago that he was a Reformed Baptist. Less still, and he was a Reformed paedobaptist who believed the RCC ceased being a genuine church when they anathematized the gospel at Trent and who disavowed paedocommunion. Now, he's changed position on those two items as well. He seems a bit too flashy (like a comet) and un-anchored/unstable to be the leader of this "new reformation" he keeps talking about. Personally, I don't want to be reformed by Wilson, let alone by the bad company he keeps. :2cents:
 
Greg,
That bio account is interesting. I have a few questions (I don't doubt you): where did you find this stuff about him being an arminian Baptist? I remember reading in To a Thousand Generations taht he baptized both of his teenagers as a Baptist. You say he is changing positions to quickly (Arminian--->Reformed Baptist------>PaedoBaptist), I see it as progressiving...sorry, couldn't resist;) .
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Greg,
That bio account is interesting. I have a few questions (I don't doubt you): where did you find this stuff about him being an arminian Baptist? I remember reading in To a Thousand Generations that he baptized both of his teenagers as a Baptist.

That's right. He also shares a lot of his personal bio in his speaking engagements: sermons, lectures, and debates. In his recent debate with James White, for example, he mentioned his arminian Southern Baptist days and his becoming reformed in 1988. He became paedo in 1993.

You say he is changing positions to quickly (Arminian--->Reformed Baptist------>PaedoBaptist), I see it as progressiving...sorry, couldn't resist;) .

:lol: No doubt. To clarify, I don't necessarily think he's changing his positions too quickly. We all change beliefs as we are persuaded. I think he's changing too quickly to be the leader of a "new reformation." If he lives another 25 years, I've no idea the destination to which he is leading his disciples. Steady men like Lig Duncan or John MacArthur or Sinclair Furguson or Al Mohler -- you know where they stand and where they are going. If Lig became a Baptist or John became a paedobaptist, we'd all be shocked. I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone would be too shocked if Doug became an Episcopalian or a Theonomist or a Reformed Catholic. I know I wouldn't.
 
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Fred, I can't read the link because I'm not a member of the forum. Can you provide some quotations?

Here is a goodly section:

If the non-imputation of sin is part and parcel of the whole of God's reckoning process, then faith alone cannot be the single instrument of justification. God does not impute sin to the repentant sinner. I would contend that repentance therefore is an instrument as well. Indeed, if repentance is an instrument, then so is new obedience. Why? Because when I man repents, he is forsaking disobedience and simultaneously choosing new obedience. Repentance is not just a turning from sin. It is a turning to righteousness. Thus, as I contended, God in justifying a man takes the whole of man's life into account, not meritoriously of course. It is again merit that Paul is bringing his invective against "works." Paul's use of term "faith" is not meant to be indicative of merely an internal action of man, but rather, the reception of salvation as a gift through the HUMILITY of the receiver. Again, I would ask what to me is an obvious question. Why would a wise and righteous judge in rendering a verdict deliberately exclude part of the evidence in that reckoning (i.e., just look at only faith)? In fact, I believe that the Scripture is clear that God could not just look at faith alone, because if that "faith" produces no fruit, it is not saving faith. Thus, at the very least, those who contend for "faith" as the alone instrument of justification must grant that God takes a sideways glance at works so to speak or he examines the nature of the faith he investigates to see that it is a working faith (Galatians 5:6). So, how is it helpful to say that in this reckoning, God looks simply at our faith when in fact he doesn't examine "just" our faith?

Emphasis mine.
 
Originally posted by doulosChristou
I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone would be too shocked if Doug became an Episcopalian or a Theonomist or a Reformed Catholic. I know I wouldn't.

I think Wilson is a theonomist already.
 
Wilson is a theonomist but with all other things going on, nobody cares. Furthermore, with the Federal Vision going on, neither he nor his opponents harp on theonomy.
 
Originally posted by doulosChristou
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Greg,
That bio account is interesting. I have a few questions (I don't doubt you): where did you find this stuff about him being an arminian Baptist? I remember reading in To a Thousand Generations that he baptized both of his teenagers as a Baptist.

That's right. He also shares a lot of his personal bio in his speaking engagements: sermons, lectures, and debates. In his recent debate with James White, for example, he mentioned his arminian Southern Baptist days and his becoming reformed in 1988. He became paedo in 1993.

You say he is changing positions to quickly (Arminian--->Reformed Baptist------>PaedoBaptist), I see it as progressiving...sorry, couldn't resist;) .

:lol: No doubt. To clarify, I don't necessarily think he's changing his positions too quickly. We all change beliefs as we are persuaded. I think he's changing too quickly to be the leader of a "new reformation." If he lives another 25 years, I've no idea the destination to which he is leading his disciples. Steady men like Lig Duncan or John MacArthur or Sinclair Furguson or Al Mohler -- you know where they stand and where they are going. If Lig became a Baptist or John became a paedobaptist, we'd all be shocked. I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone would be too shocked if Doug became an Episcopalian or a Theonomist or a Reformed Catholic. I know I wouldn't.

Wilson is a Theonomist. What happened to the virtue of being a student of the bible? ;)
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Wilson is a theonomist but with all other things going on, nobody cares. Furthermore, with the Federal Vision going on, neither he nor his opponents harp on theonomy.

Yes...everything is going according to plan! Mwuahahahaha :lol:
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Fred, I can't read the link because I'm not a member of the forum. Can you provide some quotations?

Here is a goodly section:

If the non-imputation of sin is part and parcel of the whole of God's reckoning process, then faith alone cannot be the single instrument of justification. God does not impute sin to the repentant sinner. I would contend that repentance therefore is an instrument as well. Indeed, if repentance is an instrument, then so is new obedience. Why? Because when I man repents, he is forsaking disobedience and simultaneously choosing new obedience. Repentance is not just a turning from sin. It is a turning to righteousness. Thus, as I contended, God in justifying a man takes the whole of man's life into account, not meritoriously of course. It is again merit that Paul is bringing his invective against "works." Paul's use of term "faith" is not meant to be indicative of merely an internal action of man, but rather, the reception of salvation as a gift through the HUMILITY of the receiver. Again, I would ask what to me is an obvious question. Why would a wise and righteous judge in rendering a verdict deliberately exclude part of the evidence in that reckoning (i.e., just look at only faith)? In fact, I believe that the Scripture is clear that God could not just look at faith alone, because if that "faith" produces no fruit, it is not saving faith. Thus, at the very least, those who contend for "faith" as the alone instrument of justification must grant that God takes a sideways glance at works so to speak or he examines the nature of the faith he investigates to see that it is a working faith (Galatians 5:6). So, how is it helpful to say that in this reckoning, God looks simply at our faith when in fact he doesn't examine "just" our faith?

Emphasis mine.

Wow, Fred. Who wrote that? That's ridiculous.

One of the achilles heels of all works-righteousness theologies, besides the fact that Scripture condemns it, is the simple fact that nobody is ever able to know how many good works are necessary to merit salvation, what works are truly better than other works, and in some instances what works are truly even good works at all. Thus, salvation becomes this great fearful mystery where everybody can only wonder if they're saved or not. This is not the salvation accomplished by Christ. Sola Fide! Sola Gratia!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top