Reprobate Participation in the Ordo?

[AdamM]

EVERYTHING Steve Wilkins has written on this subject are addressing a single side of the issue, the side of the "covenant." (objectivity) From that perspective, all "faith" is the same. This does not mean that all 'faith" is the same in every sense, but that all "faith" is the same, except for duration, with respect to objective covenant realities. But this does not deny that, behind these realities, in the greater knowledge and wisdom of God, the faith of the elect and reprobate have no difference. Indeed, I assume Wilkins would agree with his former assistant pastor, Rich Lusk, who says in the same volume, "perseverance is not merely the caboose on the end of the train...rather, its presence or absence qualifies one's whole participation the ordo salutis." (FV, 275) That little word "qualifies" implies that the reprobate to participate in SOME sense (covenentally/objectively) in the ordo, but not in the same way that the eternally elect do. Yet, as the AAPC summary statement on covenant, baptism, and salvation states, "the Bible does not explain the distinction between the nature of the work of the Spirit in the reprobate and the nature of His work in the elect." One may disagree with this statement, but its orthodoxy is preserved by carefully indicating that there IS a distinction. The simple statement is that the Bible does not precisely "explain" that distinction. Still, the distinction is further implied in the revised version of this same document...

I wanted to pull this quote out of the Louisiana Presbytery thread in hopes that we could flesh this out a bit, because I think this is one area where the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue approach goes off the tracks.

Here are a few questions to get the ball rolling:

1. How do the reprobate participate in the ordo? AA says they do in some sense, do you agree with that? I have to assume AA has at least some idea of how the reprobate participate in the ordo or they wouldn´t make a point of it. What do you think?

2. Is orthodoxy preserved by simply by indicting that there is a distinction between the nature of the Spirits work in the reprobate and the elect? Could for example, a person say that the only difference is perseverance? Would that allow for the possibility that a reprobate could enjoy benefits such as justification, sanctification and then lose those benefits by not preserving?

3. Is faith a gift from God that can be lost by the recipient not persevering? Is that possible?

4. In the quote below asserts:

EVERYTHING Steve Wilkins has written on this subject are addressing a single side of the issue, the side of the "covenant." (objectivity)

Does that really jive with this quote later in the paragraph?

"That little word "qualifies" implies that the reprobate to participate in SOME sense (covenentally/objectively) in the ordo, but not in the same way that the eternally elect do.

Might AA be guilty of category jumping here? Is a statement about participation in the ordo, a jump away from the "objective"?


I will add some thoughts later.

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by AdamM]

 

[wsw201]

Okay, I'll start.

1. The Ordo is the Order of Salvation. Since the ordo starts with election, and since a reprobate is not by definition elect, they do not participate in anyway in the ordo.

2. No one can not. Though a reprobate may have "common operations of the Spirit" (WCF 10.4), they are not effectually called, therefore not saved. If one is going to argue that a reprobate is saved but may not persevere, then Calvinism is turned on its head (TULIP) and becomes Wesleyian Arminianism.

3. No its not possible.

4. If they were to say that the reprobate can enjoy some of the benefits of the visible church, I could buy that otherwise it makes no sense.

As has been noted in other threads, the FVer's like to change definitions and then say they are being misunderstood. Unfortunately for them, and as they have stated repeatedly, they are crystal clear as to what they mean and need to be held accountable for it.

 

[turmeric]

 

[AdamM]

Thanks Wayne!

I agree with everything you have written. From what I have seen, the FVer's seem dead set against making clear, simple, statements. The quote Joseph copied from a FV advocate is a great example - it's about as clear as mud and ironically it's purpose was to clarify. Equivocation, qualification, and nuances on top of nuances and some wonder why people get worried about this new "paradigm"?

I appreciate that you mentioned the "common operations of the Spirit." I don't see how anyone can read the Standards and think that "common operations" would include any parts of the ordo.

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by AdamM]

 

[Myshkin]

Originally posted by AdamM
1. How do the reprobate participate in the ordo?

3. Is faith a gift from God that can be lost by the recipient not persevering? Is that possible?

"The Arminian View. The Arminians hold that Christ did not render strict satisfaction to the justice of God, but yet offered a real propitiation for sin, which was graciously accepted and acted on as satisfactory by God in pardoning sin and thus justifiying the sinner. While this only squares past accounts, God also makes provision for the future. He just as graciously impute's the believers faith to him for righteousness, that faith, namely, as including the entire religious life of the believer,-- his evangelical obedience. On this view faith is no more the mere instrument of the positive element of justification, but the graciously admitted ground on which it rests. Justification, then, is not a judicial but a sovereign act of God."

"The denial of the doctrine of perseverance virtually makes the salvation of man dependent on the human will rather than the grace of God...The idea is that, after a man is brought to a state of grace by the operation of the Holy Spirit alone, or by the joint operation of the Holy Spirit and the will of man, it rests solely with man to continue in the faith or to forsake the faith, just as he sees fit. This renders the cause of man very precarious and makes it impossible for him to attain to the blessed assurance of faith....."

"The ordo salutis describes the process by which the work of salvation, wrought in Christ, is subectively realized in the hearts and lives of sinners...Finally, the order of salvation is concluded with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and their final glorification."

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 415, 418, 525, 549

Even if we disagree on whether this FV stuff is heresy, I think it is obvious by these quotes that it is at least Arminian or Lutheran. The FV may not be rendered outside of the christian faith in general, but I hope the PCA and other reformed churches infected with this stuff will see that it is not reformed and is contrary to the WCF.

 

[Puritanhead]

If they're not elect than they are not really in the order of salvation... William Perkin's golden chart does a chart, however, which shows how the reprobate fall away when they reject the Gospel... you cannot lose something you never had... which contrasts the dispensationalist OSAS doctrine (that tinges on varying degrees of antinomianism) with the Reformed doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by RAS
Even if we disagree on whether this FV stuff is heresy, I think it is obvious by these quotes that it is at least Arminian or Lutheran. The FV may not be rendered outside of the christian faith in general, but I hope the PCA and other reformed churches infected with this stuff will see that it is not reformed and is contrary to the WCF.

I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. Doug Wilson (for instance) is just as much a believer in hard-core-5-point-Calvinism as the rest of us. I have had numerous email exchanges with his assistant (Mike Lawyer), and I have read a number of his books and blogs. There is not one Arminian bone in his body. Wilson has made it very clear, repeatedly, that he *utterly* believes in the Sovereignty of God, and that not even one thing ever occurs unless God has ordained it.

I disagree with Wilson's theology on various points. (For example, I am anti-paedocommunion.) But anyone who would call him an "Arminian" just hasn't done his homework very well. Rest assured, Doug Wilson is a Calvinist.

 

[Myshkin]

Hi Joseph.

How do the reprobate participate in the ordo salutis? My point was that the ordo is a logically tight system/process that is linked together. If one says that a reprobate can particpate in the ordo (regeneration, justification..) how does one not also receive the grace of perseverance which is part of that ordo? It is historical fact that Lutherans and Arminians allow for people to be justified at one time yet not persevere. I fail to see how that is in line with calvinism.

BTW, I never even mentioned Wilson. I only mentioned the FV. Whether he is truly a part of that group was not my focus. I was simply showing how the FV is saying the same things as historical arminianism and lutheranism on this point. Part of the trouble I am having is the seeming antithetical nature the FV takes in its affirmation of the 5 points of calvinism and its affirmation of the arminian/lutheran view of the ordo. Can these two be reconciled?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Having listened to Wilson's presbytery examinaton recently, I don't see him being too closely related to the heretics in the FV movement, if you will. I disagree with him on paedocommunion vehemently, and I have some issues with his choice of wording on others (i.e. redefining regeneration, Christian, etc.), but he is, for the most part, solidly Reformed. Now, someone like Schlissel, I might pull a Martin Luther on him if I was ever in the same room with him.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by RAS
Hi Joseph.

How do the reprobate participate in the ordo salutis? My point was that the ordo is a logically tight system/process that is linked together. If one says that a reprobate can particpate in the ordo (regeneration, justification..) how does one not also receive the grace of perseverance which is part of that ordo? It is historical fact that Lutherans and Arminians allow for people to be justified at one time yet not persevere. I fail to see how that is in line with calvinism.

Excellent questions.

(Let me just repeat at this point that I am personally not a Federal Vision advocate. Rather, I am just pointing out that they are not heretical. Disagreement is one thing. Heresy is quite another.)

If I thought that Federal Visionists denied the truth of the ordo salutis, then I would have a real problem with them. If they really mixed up justification and sanctification - in the systematic theology sense - then I might join in calling them heretics.

But I do not think they have done this. I believe they hold to the same ordo salutis that "normal" Reformed folk like you and I do.

Rather, they are simply arguing that the *words* "justification" and "sanctification" and "Christian" can carry other meanings in other contexts.

Please consider the following analogy made by Douglas Wilson:

One of the stories circulating out there is that the federal vision folks have changed the definitions of words, words like Christian or justification. This is said because it is simply assumed (not demonstrated) that any expansion of a word's uses must necessarily include an abandonment of previous uses. I was brought up in an evangelical home, and was taught that a genuine Christian was the kind of Christian who goes to heaven when he dies. This is an important (and precious) use of the word. I agree with it as strongly as I ever did. But somehow, because of a slavish and superstitious reverence for that one definition as the only possible definition, my recognition that the word can be used in other senses has completely thrown some people.

Suppose there were two young boys, Sammy and Dougie. Both of them were pleased one day to start receiving an allowance from their fathers, and they received a quarter a week. They both enjoyed the allowance, and Dougie particularly liked the sound of the word quarter. He used it a lot. One day, years later, when Dougie was in third grade, he learned another definition of the same word. The class was learning fractions, and he learned that quarter could refer to things other than the coin. You could divide pies into quarters for example. Proud of his new knowledge, he came into his house one afternoon with his friend Sammy, and asked his mother, who was cutting up a pie, if he could have a quarter.

"You want a coin?" Sammy asked.

"No," Dougie said, "I would like a fourth of the pie. I am famished."

"That's not how you used to use that word," Sammy said. "You've changed."

"No, I've not changed. I still think quarter means a silver coin. I just don't think that is the only thing it means. But it still means that for sure. See, here is a quarter in my pocket."

"No," Sammy said. "I heard you. You just called a piece of pie a quarter."

"Well, yes. But that is not a change."

Sammy still looked dubious. "Well, I don't like it. But I'll go for it if you admit that the two words quarter have absolutely nothing to do with each other."

"Well, I can't do that. They do have something in common -- a quarter is a fourth of a dollar and a quarter is a fourth of a pie."

"See! We can't be friends anymore. You are using the word differently than you used to, and, worst of all, you won't even admit that you have changed. Quarter means a silver coin. Now you say it means a piece of pie. Which is it? Yes or no. A coin or pie? No matter what you say, that's change."

"Now when you said change," Dougie said. "Do you mean going from one state to another? Or do you mean coins in your pocket? Because . . ."

But with that, Dougie's mother interrupted, told them both to stop being silly, and shooed them out into the back yard.

Posted by Douglas Wilson - 9/25/2004

What if I made the following comment: "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." Would you call me a heretic? Would you call me crazy Federal Vision person? Would you call me a Roman Catholic?

I hope not. Because when I say that "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone", I am merely quoting James 2:24!!!

Context is everything. The word "justified" in James 2:24 is simply talking about a different kind of justification than Paul talks about in Romans 3:28, which says, "a man is justified by faith apart from works of law."

If the word "justified" ALWAYS has to carry the same meaning, then Romans 3:28 contradicts James 2:24. But we know that the Word of God is without error, and cannot contradict itself. Therefore, the only possibility we have left is that the word "justified" sometimes means one thing, and sometimes another, depending on the context.

Let me be very clear: The doctrinal differences between Roman Catholics and Reformed Theologians are of course HUGE . . . The Roman Catholics mess up justification where it matters most. I do not deny this.

I am just saying that the Federal Visionists do NOT adhere to Roman Catholic views of justification. Anyone who says this has probably not genuinely tried to understand what they are saying.

Originally posted by RAS
BTW, I never even mentioned Wilson. I only mentioned the FV. Whether he is truly a part of that group was not my focus.

While there are other adherants, Douglas Wilson is often considered to be one of the "Federal Vision Four". If you ignore Wilson, then you are not looking at the whole FV movement. However much we may disagree with Wilson, if we agree that Wilson is not a heretic, then we need to think twice about the other FV people as well. The person whose writings seemed the scariest to me were the writings of pastor Wilkins. But even in his case, my studies led me to realize that he is espousing nuances and additions, rather than any actual changes to core justification doctrine.

So I guess I would like to know exactly what you mean by "the FV". Specifically whose teachings within the FV strike you as heresy? Again, I'm not asking about mere disagreement. What *specifically* in "the FV" has convinced you that Federal Visionists are gross heretics?

(For what it's worth, I think Federal Visionists may be disagreed with like we disagree with Lutherans, Southern Baptists, or like Reformed Baptists disagree with Presbyterians. Disagreement is going to happen. I'm just tired of the "heresy" charge being lobbed as a cheap-shot.)

Originally posted by RAS
I was simply showing how the FV is saying the same things as historical arminianism and lutheranism on this point. Part of the trouble I am having is the seeming antithetical nature the FV takes in its affirmation of the 5 points of calvinism and its affirmation of the arminian/lutheran view of the ordo. Can these two be reconciled?

Ok, I'm finally going to get around to answering your question. You said earlier:

If one says that a reprobate can particpate in the ordo (regeneration, justification..) how does one not also receive the grace of perseverance which is part of that ordo? It is historical fact that Lutherans and Arminians allow for people to be justified at one time yet not persevere. I fail to see how that is in line with calvinism.

What we need to understand about them (some of the FV people) is that they have all retained the *essence* of the doctrine of election, regardless of how much they make us uncomfortable from time to time with their "different vocabulary".

From what I've read, it seems to me that the FV people look at salvation something like this:

1) God decrees from all eternity who will end up in Heaven, and who will end up in hell.
2) God puts both favorably predestined and unfavorably predestined people into covenant with Himself.
3) Some people persevere as covenant keepers, and go to Heaven. They persevere because God predestined them to do so.
4) Some people are covenant breakers, and actually do "fall away". The branches "cut off" from the Romans 11 tree were actually connected to the tree, and were actually cut off. They fail to persevere in covenant with God because God predestined them to fail.

Note that in the above roughly-crafted scenario, God's Sovereignty is ultimate. Nobody goes to Heaven unless God ordains it. And nobody goes to Hell unless God ordains it.

However, if you are like me, you still would have a problem with the above scenario, left as it is. Without further clarification, however, the above scenario definitely upholds God's Sovereignty. So it is nonsense to charge Federal Visionists as being "Arminians".

What further clarification is still needed, then? The problem I still see implied in the above scenario is that it makes it sound like God ordains people to get part of the way through the ordo salutis, but then to fall away from it without completing it, which would contradict Romans 8. So, while I have hopefully dispelled the myth that FV people don't believe in God's Sovereignty, I still need to clarify how I believe FV people understand the above scenario.

(I am trying to articulate the position of a group of which I am not a member, so please bear with me if I stumble in my explanation.)

From what I can tell, FV people believe in different senses of "justification", "sanctification", "regeneration", etc. (Keep in mind the story about the word "change" in Wilson's quote above.) There is one sense of the word "regenerated" and "justified" that FV people say applies to *everyone* in the visible church. (For example, the talk about reprobate people having been "sanctified" in Hebrews 10 is one of the passages they may point to.)

However, in the other senses of the words "regenerate", "justified", "sanctified", etc., the senses normally used in systematic theology textbooks, the senses of the words that you and I normally use, they would agree with us that only those who are favorably predestined participate in the ordo.

Reading FV literature is maddening if you expect them to always use the word "justified" in the same sense.

But then again, it would be maddening to read Romans 3:28 and James 2:24, expecting them to use the word "justified" in the same sense.


Again, please do not think I agree with FV theology. I am just articulating it the best I know how above, to demonstrate that it is NOT heretical, even though you and I may disagree with it.

Disagreement is one thing. Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians disagree. But heresy is quite another. We need to be VERY SLOW to make such accusations of our brothers in Christ.

[Edited on 7-22-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[AdamM]

Again, please do not think I agree with FV theology.

Very true and people should not forget it. Anybody who has been around here for long, knows you are not in agreement with their approach.