The Federal Vision and the Doctrine of Assurance

[toddpedlar]

Don't ask me...here's the WCF, a much more reliable source.

Perhaps you would do well to include the whole of chapter XVIII, rather than just this section? Assurance IS something that can be presently had - and is NOT grounded on works, as the previous sections of chapter XVIII which you neglected to quote clearly attest:

CHAPTER XVIII.
Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation.

I. Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God: which hope shall never make them ashamed.

II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.

III. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith but that a true believer may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.

IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God's withdrawing the light of his countenance and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.

Thanks...I agree.

I quoted the wcf to show that the FV position and the "puritan work ethic" (proof of salvation position) were opposed to it..

NOT to support it.

It would have been helpful for you to state your reason for the citation, then, instead of just saying "listen to the WCF". Previously you sounded as though you supported works-assurance, which made your citation of the WCF without comment even more confusing.

 

[MOSES]

I am VERY confused by what you have posted in this thread.

You cited the WCF when I asked a question about assurance.

You weren't clear about what the purpose was in your citation, but it LOOKED like you were citing it as evidence that the WCF authors believed that works were the basis for assurance, a position that you now claim is unorthodox. It very much seemed to me (and apparently to others) that you were using it to prove that a works-assurance was something not limited to today's FV, but was present nearer the Reformation than today.

What is your position on what the WCF teaches, then? Why did you cite it in response to my question?

I did not know if you were asking me personally, or if you were asking me about another's position (e,g, the FV and other like puritans)...SO...I simpy pointed you to the wcf...which you obviously already knew contains the best answer in the assurance debate.

Again...I was not citing it to support either the FV or other puritans view on assurance...but quite the contrary.

Perhaps you thought I was because you thought I was defending the FV position because I started out by saying that their position on assurance is NOT unique or distinct to them alone...

Sorry...I think have everyone..I was not even paying much attention to this thread, my fault...I simply wanted to point out that the FV position of assurance is not all that unique.

 

[MOSES]

Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)

 

[Robert Truelove]

Well, this is sort of hairy. While I am a vocal opponent of The Federal Vision, it is true that if one is not 'abiding in Christ' they have no biblical grounds of assurance until they 'get things right' (even though they may truly be saved, I am speaking only to the issue of the biblical grounds of assurance).

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I think where they get things confused is by placing the emphasis upon the individual to keep the faith instead of emphasizing that it is God's power that keeps us in the faith. However, they affirm it is God's power that keeps those elected from eternity to salvation, but since no one has any idea if they are truly saved and being kept by God or if their profession is in vain and cannot truly know in any practical way their true standing until they stand before God in judgment, we are left with a hairy problem regarding the biblical teaching regarding assurance. The practical end is a very works focused view of the faith instead of a living in grace through faith. One inevitably emphasizes man's performance, while the other emphasizes God's grace and power in the life of the believer. It is all a matter of mis-placed emphasis.

In conclusion, they in effect place what ought to be in the front seat behind the drivers wheel in the trunk, where what is in the trunk should be in the drivers seat. This is also the fundamental error of the New Perspectives on Paul (The Cristus Victor view of the atonement places penal substitutionary atonement in the trunk). Historical orthodoxy is in many ways affirmed but deprecated to a lesser place to make room for these innovations. This of course, if consistently followed and thought out, leas to a completely different view of the gospel and the church.

I write this knowing that most if not all Federal Vision proponents would think that I have mischaracterized their position but after much digging in their material I find no way to escape my comments as the logical end of their 'discussion'.

In all seriousness though Steve Wilkins posits assurance in this way:

"by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."

"The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant"

Thus temporary assurance can be obtained for every covenant (read 'baptized') member. Furthermore he later goes on to say that one must continue to 'abide in Christ' but as long as they do so they keep their assurance.

 

[KMK]

Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)

The Wiki article says this about Weber's book/article:

In the absence of such assurances from religious authority, Weber argued that Protestants began to look for other "signs" that they were saved. Calvin and his followers taught a doctrine of double predestination, in which from the beginning God chose some people for salvation and others for damnation. The inability to influence one's own salvation presented a very difficult problem for Calvin's followers. It became an absolute duty to believe that one was chosen for salvation, and to dispel any doubt about that: lack of self-confidence was evidence of insufficient faith and a sign of damnation. So, self-confidence took the place of priestly assurance of God's grace.

The "paradox" Weber found was, in simple terms:
According to the new Protestant religions, an individual was religiously compelled to follow a secular vocation with as much zeal as possible. A person living according to this world view was more likely to accumulate money.
The new religions (in particular, Calvinism and other more austere Protestant sects) effectively forbade wastefully using hard earned money and identified the purchase of luxuries a sin. Donations to an individual's church or congregation was limited due to the rejection by certain Protestant sects of icons. Finally, donation of money to the poor or to charity was generally frowned on as it was seen as furthering beggary. This social condition was perceived as laziness, burdening their fellow man, and an affront to God; by not working, one failed to glorify God.
The manner in which this paradox was resolved, Weber argued, was the investment of this money, which gave an extreme boost to nascent capitalism.

Todd said this:

but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...

You said this:

This is not distinct to the FV is it?

This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism...

Is this the source you are using to support your view that 'all of Calvinism' shares the views of the FV on assurance?

 

[toddpedlar]

Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)

I wouldn't think that Max Weber is a particularly reliable authority on the practice and doctrine of the Puritans... perhaps it would help to study some Puritan and Reformed works on assurance instead.

 

[MOSES]

Is this the source you are using to support your view that 'all of Calvinism' shares the views of the FV on assurance?

Bam...That is it, now I know why everyone got so confused. In post 8 I said:

This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism

I meant "within"....that is, the assurance and works belief was (has been) found within Calvinism historically...not that it was part of Calvinism as a whole.

So again, is the FV view of assurance distinct to it alone? Is the FV view a NEW invention....

My thought...there are sources out there which would indicate the answer is ...NO.

 

[MOSES]

Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)

I wouldn't think that Max Weber is a particularly reliable authority on the practice and doctrine of the Puritans.

Perhaps..

But this is not something he invented entirely, others have taken similar notice.

Here is a quote from another man:

biblical assurance results from depending on God's objective promises rather than on any subjective experiences. Unfortunately, many of the Puritan followers of Calvin have strayed from their Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves

David Bickel (yea...he is a Lutheran, but my point is still the same)

Again...is the FV advocating something new...or have other Reformed folks (including some puritans) went down this path before.

 

[KMK]

Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)

I wouldn't think that Max Weber is a particularly reliable authority on the practice and doctrine of the Puritans.

Perhaps..

But this is not something he invented entirely, others have taken similar notice.

Here is a quote from another man:

biblical assurance results from depending on God's objective promises rather than on any subjective experiences. Unfortunately, many of the Puritan followers of Calvin have strayed from their Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves

David Bickel (yea...he is a Lutheran, but my point is still the same)

Again...is the FV advocating something new...or have other Reformed folks (including some puritans) went down this path before.

I agree that many have 'strayed from the Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves.' But that would mean that they do not represent 'reformed' thought. They are no longer 'reformed' because they have strayed. Yes?

 

[MOSES]

Perhaps..

But this is not something he invented entirely, others have taken similar notice.

Here is a quote from another man:

biblical assurance results from depending on God's objective promises rather than on any subjective experiences. Unfortunately, many of the Puritan followers of Calvin have strayed from their Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves

David Bickel (yea...he is a Lutheran, but my point is still the same)

Again...is the FV advocating something new...or have other Reformed folks (including some puritans) went down this path before.

I agree that many have 'strayed from the Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves.' But that would mean that they do not represent 'reformed' thought. They are no longer 'reformed' because they have strayed. Yes?

First, let me say this. I think the quote, which you copy in your question, is coming from the position that Lutheranism is the Reformed faith...That the puritans have strayed because of the emphais on works.
(Is there not a real and historical debate that Lutherans can do as they please, e.g., live like the devil, beause their assurance is in the gospel alone,,,but the Calvinist rejected that and said no "we must work our our salvation. . ." and emphasized good works...?)


note: I quoted David Beckel above to show that others see Calvinists and puritans as looking to works for assurance...and I did that to show that Max Weber is not the only one.
Heck...I even seen a documentary on the reformation that taught that many in the Calvinist camp looked to works for assurance..
MY whole point is that this is not new with the FV.

KMK
To answer your question...I would say NO, as it relates to the quote. Puritans who placed an emphasis on works in assurance were not suddenly "non-reformed" because of that emphasis, in my opinion.

 

[MOSES]

Note:

One thing to remember in this topic is the difference between "perseverance" and "assurance."

perseverance is God's view and will towards us (it is soley the work of God). Assurance is our view of our ourselves towards God.
Thus.. perseverance is necessary in salvation. Without the "P" in tulip, there is no salvation.

Is assurance a requirement?

 

[KMK]

Perhaps..

But this is not something he invented entirely, others have taken similar notice.

Here is a quote from another man:

David Bickel (yea...he is a Lutheran, but my point is still the same)

Again...is the FV advocating something new...or have other Reformed folks (including some puritans) went down this path before.

I agree that many have 'strayed from the Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves.' But that would mean that they do not represent 'reformed' thought. They are no longer 'reformed' because they have strayed. Yes?

First, let me say this. I think the quote, which you copy in your question, is coming from the position that Lutheranism is the Reformed faith...That the puritans have strayed because of the emphais on works.
(Is there not a real and historical debate that Lutherans can do as they please, e.g., live like the devil, beause their assurance is in the gospel alone,,,but the Calvinist rejected that and said no "we must work our our salvation. . ." and emphasized good works...?)


note: I quoted David Beckel above to show that others see Calvinists and puritans as looking to works for assurance...and I did that to show that Max Weber is not the only one.
Heck...I even seen a documentary on the reformation that taught that many in the Calvinist camp looked to works for assurance..
MY whole point is that this is not new with the FV.

KMK
To answer your question...I would say NO, as it relates to the quote. Puritans who placed an emphasis on works in assurance were not suddenly "non-reformed" because of that emphasis, in my opinion.

I agree that I don't want to get into a discussion of what is and what is not 'reformed' as so often happens on this board.

However, is it really fair to characterize the Puritan view as placing an emphasis on works similarly to the FV? It seems to me the Puritans placed an emphasis on the desire for works that flows from faith as a point of assurance. The emphasis was on 'endeavoring' to do good works and not on the works themselves. Hence LC Q 80:

Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?

A. Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him,

And WLC 18:III. This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it:[10] yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.[11] And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure,[12] that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience,[13] the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.

It seems to me that the confession teaches that our 'giving all diligence to make his calling and election sure', grows out of our attaining the infallible assurance of faith.

From the Sum of Saving Knowledge:

THE EVIDENCES OF TRUE FAITH.

SO much for the laying the grounds of faith, and warrants to believe. Now, for evidencing of true faith by fruits, these four things are requisite: 1. That the believer be soundly convinced, in his judgment, of his obligation to keep the whole moral law, all the days of his life; and that not the less, but so much the more, as he is delivered by Christ from the covenant of works, and curse of the law. 2. That he endeavour to grow in the exercise and daily practice of godliness and righteousness. 3. That the course of his new obedience run in the right channel, that is through faith in Christ, and through a good conscience, to all the duties of love towards God and man.

It seems the Puritans focused assurance on a right heart condition in regards to works and not the works themselves. I am no expert on the FV, but can the same be said of their doctrine of 'covenantal obedience'? If the FV says, "Look to your baptism" (as some say) that is different than when the Puritans said, "Look that you are soundly convinced of your obligation to keep the whole moral law."

------

BTW, does this quote in the post by Poimen sound strange?

"by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."

Is he saying, "We are baptized, therefore we are elect?" I thought we were elect and therefore we are baptized into Christ.

 

[MOSES]

"by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."

Is he saying, "We are baptized, therefore we are elect?" I thought we were elect and therefore we are baptized into Christ.

I am perty positive that Wilkins is not speaking about the decree's of God, as laid out in the wcf, in his use of the word "elect". He is speaking about visible election (which the scriptures, according to wilkins, make this distinction as well)...hence the "by baptism"...which is also visible.

Visibly speaking...we are elect because we are baptized.
Concerning the decrees of God, we are baptized because we are elect (providence playing a role in that).

Note: I don't see a problem with this.

 

[MOSES]

KMK

Concerning the FV and the puritan emphasis on works in assurance:

I have not done enough research of the FV to make the comparison. At this stage in the game, with my limited knowledge of the FV, I am not sure that there is that big of a difference between "covenant faithfullness" and the puritans emphasis of "good works".

But if anyone can help me see the "bigness" of the difference, it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Hippo]

KMK

Concerning the FV and the puritan emphasis on works in assurance:

I have not done enough research of the FV to make the comparison. At this stage in the game, with my limited knowledge of the FV, I am not sure that there is that big of a difference between "covenant faithfullness" and the puritans emphasis of "good works".

But if anyone can help me see the "bigness" of the difference, it would be greatly appreciated.

A big difference is that the puritans did not conflate election to the church with election to decretal salvation.

The puritans understood that we do good works because (and indeed if) we are elect, there is no question of us being elect because we do good works, even if such works are only possible through the work of God in our lives.

 

[MOSES]

KMK

Concerning the FV and the puritan emphasis on works in assurance:

I have not done enough research of the FV to make the comparison. At this stage in the game, with my limited knowledge of the FV, I am not sure that there is that big of a difference between "covenant faithfullness" and the puritans emphasis of "good works".

But if anyone can help me see the "bigness" of the difference, it would be greatly appreciated.

A big difference is that the puritans did not conflate election to the church with election to decretal salvation.

The puritans understood that we do good works because (and indeed if) we are elect, there is no question of us being elect because we do good works, even if such works are only possible through the work of God in our lives.

How does this show up, or what does this matter, in each of their doctrines on ASSURANCE?

 

[MOSES]

A big difference is that the puritans did not conflate election to the church with election to decretal salvation..

Do you have some info that shows that this is what the FV actually teaches, i.e., election to the church is the same as (fused together) election with Christ?

I thought they simply taught the defintion of election being EITHER/OR .. election to the Church (via sacraments) is a visible form of election,,but is NOT election in the same sense as the eternal decree of God, as it is laid out in the wcf.

 

[Hippo]

KMK

Concerning the FV and the puritan emphasis on works in assurance:

I have not done enough research of the FV to make the comparison. At this stage in the game, with my limited knowledge of the FV, I am not sure that there is that big of a difference between "covenant faithfullness" and the puritans emphasis of "good works".

But if anyone can help me see the "bigness" of the difference, it would be greatly appreciated.

A big difference is that the puritans did not conflate election to the church with election to decretal salvation.

The puritans understood that we do good works because (and indeed if) we are elect, there is no question of us being elect because we do good works, even if such works are only possible through the work of God in our lives.

How does this show up, or what does this matter, in each of their doctrines on ASSURANCE?

Because to the FV assurance of temporal salvation is what man is able to obtain and good works play a part in salvation (albeit good works that are the product of God's grace).

 

[Hippo]

A big difference is that the puritans did not conflate election to the church with election to decretal salvation..

Do you have some info that shows that this is what the FV actually teaches, i.e., election to the church is the same as (fused together) election with Christ?

I thought they simply taught the defintion of election being EITHER/OR .. election to the Church (via sacraments) is a visible form of election,,but is NOT election in the same sense as the eternal decree of God, as it is laid out in the wcf.

I agree, they do not see it as election in the same sense, but when they use the term election you never know which they are referring to (as we have seen in some of the quotes in this thread with regards to election).

In this way the concepts are conflated, the confusion almost appears to be deliberate as instead of being seen as different concepts they are seen as a hierarchy.

 

[MOSES]

How does this show up, or what does this matter, in each of their doctrines on ASSURANCE?

Because to the FV assurance of temporal salvation is what man is able to obtain and good works play a part in salvation (albeit good works that are the product of God's grace).

Ok..for the FV assurance of salvation is what man is able to obtain.
What is wrong with that? Does not the confession speak of that? There would be no such thing as assurance without man "obtaining" it.

Ok...And good works play a part in salvation.
I have never heard an FVer teach this...Do you have a particular person in mind when you say that the FV say this?

Note: if "play a part" means, the fruit of salvation,,,then I would agree...but if "play a part" means the means of salvation, then I would disagree.

Also...I am here to learn, not to defend...so lay it on me.

 

[HaigLaw]

I have not understood all the subtle nuances in the back and forth discussions, but on the original question of this thread, no, I don't see how they can have any assurance.

 

[MOSES]

I have not understood all the subtle nuances in the back and forth discussions, but on the original question of this thread, no, I don't see how they can have any assurance.

Do you have assurance?

Please tell me how your assurance then differs from theirs. You can have assurance of salvation, but, in your opinion, you cannot see how they (FV) can have assurance...Tell me why.

 

[MW]

So, if the promises of God are signed and sealed in baptism (HC QA 66), can we not speak of baptism as being part of our assurance? Not that baptism is our salvation, but that baptism is the sign and seal of God's promises, which, when met with faith, are our salvation. As a pastor, I have encouraged my people to consider the promises of God signed and sealed in baptism and, believing those promises, to have assurance and confidence.

What do you think?

Very well observed. Traditionally Word and Sacraments as means of grace were regarded as the objective marks of assurance, and the inward grace wrought by the Spirit as manifesting itself in subjective marks. The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to baptism as efficacious in and of itself without pressing the need to observe whether the grace signified does in fact reveal itself in those evidences of a distinguishing work of God's Spirit.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So, if the promises of God are signed and sealed in baptism (HC QA 66), can we not speak of baptism as being part of our assurance? Not that baptism is our salvation, but that baptism is the sign and seal of God's promises, which, when met with faith, are our salvation. As a pastor, I have encouraged my people to consider the promises of God signed and sealed in baptism and, believing those promises, to have assurance and confidence.

What do you think?

Very well observed. Traditionally Word and Sacraments as means of grace were regarded as the objective marks of assurance, and the inward grace wrought by the Spirit as manifesting itself in subjective marks. The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to baptism as efficacious in and of itself without pressing the need to observe whether the grace signified does in fact reveal itself in those evidences of a distinguishing work of God's Spirit.

Ding! Ding!

You'll hear an FV proponent trumpet the idea that if someone asks them if they're elect they can say, unreservedly, "Yes, you were baptized."

To be baptized into the visible Church is to become elect (in a sense) because the person is now in the Covenant and to be in the Covenant is to be in Christ and united to Christ (in a sense). What maintains that union with Christ? Continued faithfulness.

This turns everything completely on its head.

While the Sacrament does, in fact, confer membership in the visible New Covenant, there is nothing that the Church does to unite a person to Christ. The instrument that procures that blessing is faith alone. Only those that have Evangelical faith, born from above, receive the actual grace signified by baptism.

How then the comfort to the believer in the Reformed schema?

Because the baptism does not point to the recipient in baptism (something the FV and Baptists have in common from different angles). Baptism is not saying that all who are baptized receive all the graces signified by baptism or that what is signified must be true of those baptized. What it does is Promise those graces to those that have faith.

By looking at my baptism in the Reformed manner, I'm able to remember the Promise of God and then examine whether I have, indeed, believed the Gospel as the Scriptures reveal Christ. My assurance is then grounded by the evidences of Evangelical faith and the Promise of God announced in my baptism assures me with the ground of God's Immutability.

In contrast, by looking at my baptism in the FV manner, I merely know that every Tom, Dick, and Harry that's baptized into the Church is elect (for now) just like me. I can look to my faithfulness now that says that I'm still faithful and haven't left the Covenant and so I'm certain to be saved in the future provided I never leave the Covenant. The introspection in this scheme is not to see a definitive evangelical work that is clinging to Christ in His finished work but an introspection that clings to progress in sanctification. I know I'm still in the Covenant today so I'm saved. I know I'm faithful to the Covenant today so the graces that signify baptism are true of me today.

In the Reformed view, assurance is grounded on the basis of the evidence of simple trust and an immutable Promise. The FV view grounds assurance in my faithfulness today that may or may not be vindicated in the future. I'll find out I'm elect at the judgment throne.

 

[toddpedlar]

How does this show up, or what does this matter, in each of their doctrines on ASSURANCE?

Because to the FV assurance of temporal salvation is what man is able to obtain and good works play a part in salvation (albeit good works that are the product of God's grace).

Ok..for the FV assurance of salvation is what man is able to obtain.
What is wrong with that? Does not the confession speak of that? There would be no such thing as assurance without man "obtaining" it.

Ok...And good works play a part in salvation.
I have never heard an FVer teach this...Do you have a particular person in mind when you say that the FV say this?

Note: if "play a part" means, the fruit of salvation,,,then I would agree...but if "play a part" means the means of salvation, then I would disagree.

Also...I am here to learn, not to defend...so lay it on me.

What works of the FV crowd have you read / are you reading? You can find this teaching in "The Federal Vision", edited by Wilkins, for starters, and Norman Shepherd's books as well. Another resource in which you can see this kind of thinking is the Federal Vision, Pro & Con, edited by Calvin Beisner. Rich Lusk is, in my opinion, the worst offender when it comes to teaching distinctly that works are regarded as part of our 'salvation qualification'. Mark Horne is just as committed to this position.

 

[MOSES]

Traditionally Word and Sacraments as means of grace were regarded as the objective marks of assurance, and the inward grace wrought by the Spirit as manifesting itself in subjective marks. The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to baptism as efficacious in and of itself without pressing the need to observe whether the grace signified does in fact reveal itself in those evidences of a distinguishing work of God's Spirit.

questions:

Baptism is efficacious...right?

Baptism (the efficacy of) is conferred by the Holy Ghost....right?

Does the grace have to be "revealed"...or does it just have to belong to those who "that grace" belongeth?

An infant does not "reveal", nor do people "observe", the grace that is effective in baptism, yet it still really belongs to those to whom grace is promised...right?

My questions arise from here:

WCF 28

6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to baptism as efficacious in and of itself without pressing the need to observe [it]

How doe the WCF 28 relate to this statement...How is the FV so far removed from this? How is the FV a problem, again?

Sorry for my slow learning...I just don't get it.

 

[MOSES]

[What works of the FV crowd have you read / are you reading? .

I have not read any works/books of the FV crowd...I have read works of the FV advesaries...(like the opc report)...but that only caused me to have more questions. Note: I found myself agreeing with some of the things that the opc accused the FV of...
That is why this topic is a big deal to me.

Note: I had never heard of "theonomy" until someone called me one. I then had to do the research myself. Come to find out, my view of theonomy was never taught to me, I just simply came up with my position from studying the scriptures.

Again...some of the things that people accuse the FV of...are things I have learned myself in studying the scriptures and confession.

That is why I am so curious.

Note: I have listened to steve wilkins examination.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

WCF 28

6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to baptism as efficacious in and of itself without pressing the need to observe [it]

How doe the WCF 28 relate to this statement...How is the FV so far removed from this? How is the FV a problem, again?

Sorry for my slow learning...I just don't get it.

You missed the key qualifier.

The grace promised in baptism is only exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to those that the grace belongs to (i.e. the elect).

The FV states that grace is exhibited and conferred to all that are baptized. "By the working of the works" every baptized member is united to Christ and His benefits (to an extent) in their scheme.

You missed Rev. Winzer's point, which I tried to elaborate above. When he spoke of grace "revealing" itself he implied that those elect (to whom the grace is promised) will have faith in the Gospel and that faith will exhibit itself as well as all the other saving graces. It is the fruit of the saving graces combined with the Promise offered that grants assurance and not some sort of "everybody is in Christ in some sense by baptism" thing.

 

[MW]

Does the grace have to be "revealed"...or does it just have to belong to those who "that grace" belongeth?

An infant does not "reveal", nor do people "observe", the grace that is effective in baptism, yet it still really belongs to those to whom grace is promised...right?

It belongs to them as a sign, but not all of Israel are Israel, not all in the visible church belong to the invisible church and enjoy the spiritual blessings of being in Christ; the elect obtain the grace signified by baptism. The question of assurance of salvation does not go merely to outward privilege, but whether or not the person who has the outward privilege has profited from it by the bestowal of saving grace.

 

[Davidius]

WCF 28

6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to baptism as efficacious in and of itself without pressing the need to observe [it]

How doe the WCF 28 relate to this statement...How is the FV so far removed from this? How is the FV a problem, again?

Sorry for my slow learning...I just don't get it.

You missed the key qualifier.

The grace promised in baptism is only exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to those that the grace belongs to (i.e. the elect).

The FV states that grace is exhibited and conferred to all that are baptized. "By the working of the works" every baptized member is united to Christ and His benefits (to an extent) in their scheme.

You missed Rev. Winzer's point, which I tried to elaborate above. When he spoke of grace "revealing" itself he implied that those elect (to whom the grace is promised) will have faith in the Gospel and that faith will exhibit itself as well as all the other saving graces. It is the fruit of the saving graces combined with the Promise offered that grants assurance and not some sort of "everybody is in Christ in some sense by baptism" thing.

Rich,

Do you know anything about the differences between this position and the Lutheran position?

*EDIT*

Nevermind, found some old threads.