I have long wished to engage with Xon Hostetter's blog, Post Tenebras Lux, which has been represented by a link on my side-bar for quite some time now. Most of his recent posts have been in defense of Federal Vision Theology. My attitude toward "FV" is mixed. I don't think it's heretical; I do strongly disagree with some of the stances they take; I am very sympathetic with them on some other points; and I see reason to worry that a small number of individual participants in the FV conversation (not the FV as a whole) may be rejecting something that is at the heart of the Reformed understanding of sola fide. The ultimate judge of Christian doctrine is, of course, not what the Reformed understanding has been. But if the Reformers were wrong in their understanding of the Bible on that point -- not just wrong about some details, but centrally wrong -- then we ought to be clear that that is what is being claimed, if indeed that is what is being claimed. (Whatever may be the case with those few individuals, FV proponents in general are not making such a claim, as far as I can see.)
But even if FVers are far worse than I have made them out to be, there is no excuse for the unjust treatment they have received at the hands of many of their detractors. They have been misrepresented, often grossly. Among those who have not studied this directly, but get their info from their non-FV pastors and elders, I have met several who who think FV = it's possible to lose your salvation. That's a sorry situation, and those charged with oversight of Christ's sheep have some responsibility here. When faithful, orthodox ministers are widely rumored to teach a false doctrine, which they do not in fact teach, that constitutes an injustice. If I am going to criticize the FV in this atmosphere, I feel that I have a duty to say this, but I also want to say it in a way that is properly respectful. I'm certainly not in a position to say that all opponents of FV are guilty of willful misrepresentation. Misunderstanding can in some cases be due to honest mistake.
Obscured behind the smoke of misrepresentation, rhetorical bombast, and political machinations, there are genuinely interesting theological issues. The best place to start, if you want to get a sense of what it is that FVers share in common (as opposed to the idiosyncrasies of particular proponents) is the joint FV statement. In the rest of this post I am going to comment on some of the affirmations and denials contained in that statement. This will give a broad overview of my complaints and sympathies.
I. The first section is titled, "Our Triune God":
We affirm that the triune God is the archetype of all covenantal relations. All faithful theology and life is conducted in union with and imitation of the way God eternally is, and so we seek to understand all that the Bible teaches—on covenant, on law, on gospel, on predestination, on sacraments, on the Church—in the light of an explicit Trinitarian understanding. We deny that a mere formal adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity is sufficient to keep the very common polytheistic and unitarian temptations of unbelieving thought at bay.
There is obviously much to agree with here. But there may also be -- here as in several other places -- a genuine difference between FV and their opponents, which perhaps has not been clearly articulated. It's also not clear to me how differing attitudes in this locus are related to disagreements elsewhere.
II. The next section concerns postmillennialism.
We affirm that God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but rather so that the world through Him would be saved. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world—He is the Savior of the world. All the nations shall stream to Him, and His resting place shall be glorious. We affirm that prior to the second coming of our Lord Jesus, the earth will be as full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. We deny that eschatological views are to be a test of fellowship between orthodox believers, but at the same time we hold that an orientation of faith with regard to the gospel’s triumph in history is extremely important. We deny that it is wise to imitate Abraham in his exercise of faith while declining to believe the content of what he believed—that through him all the nations of the world would be blessed, and that his descendants would be like the stars in number.
I come down somewhere in the range of optimistic amil to cautious postmil. What I most object to in this section is the apparent implication that amils "declin[e] to believe the content of what [Abraham] believed—that through him all the nations of the world would be blessed, and that his descendants would be like the stars in number." The dispute between amil and postmil is less significant than FV would make it out to be. It is not a dispute about whether the church will triumph, or whether the earth will be as full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. It is only a dispute about whether this will be accomplished before or after the second coming. Let the dispensationalists spend their energies arguing interminably about the befores and afters of future eschatological events. We Reformed folks have better things to spend our energies arguing interminably about.
III. I agree with the general import of the next section, called, "The Next Christendom". When I have no substantive comments, I won't quote.
IV. Next, the FV document asserts that Scripture cannot be broken
We affirm that the Bible in its entirety, from Genesis to Revelation, is the infallible Word of God, and is our only ultimate rule for faith and practice. Scripture alone is the infallible and ultimate standard for Christians. We affirm further that Scripture is to be our guide in learning how to interpret Scripture, and this means we must imitate the apostolic handling of the Old Testament, paying close attention to language, syntax, context, narrative flow, literary styles, and typology—all of it integrated in Jesus Christ Himself. We deny that the Bible can be rightly understood by any hermeneutical grid not derived from the Scriptures themselves.
While I agree that Scripture is relevant to hermeneutics, I don't think one's hermeneutics can simply be "derived" from Scripture, as if Scripture provides the axioms and the rest is inferred by logical deduction.The problem of circularity should be evident here: you can't derive your hermeneutics from Scripture unless you correctly understand Scripture; and you can't correctly understand it unless you've properly interpreted it; but you can't properly interpret it (says FV) until you've derived your hermeneutics from Scripture.
The way it actually works, I think, is that we begin by interpreting Scripture in light of the hermeneutic we have inherited from tradition, a hermeneutic which contains some elements faithful to the prophetic-apostolic origin of our religion, and others unfaithful to it. We then revise that imperfect hermeneutic in light of what Scripture (thus imperfectly interpreted) seems to be saying. The hermeneutic circle that results is non-vicious, whereas it would be viciously circular to say that the Scriptures cannot ever be rightly understood except by a hermeneutical grid already derived from the Scriptures themselves.
It may be that FV people have merely expressed themselves poorly here; It wouldn't surprise me if they were willing to revise this.
V. There seems to be an incoherence to the next section.
We affirm that God's Spirit has chosen the best ways to express the revelation of God and reality, and that the divine rhetoric found in Holy Scripture is designed to strike the richest of all chords in the hearers of the Word of God. For this reason, we believe that it is pastorally best to use biblical language and phrasing in the preaching and teaching of the Bible in the Church. We deny that it necessarily unprofitable to “translate” biblical language into more “philosophical” or “scholastic” languages in order to deal with certain problems and issues that arise in the history of the Church. At the same time, we do deny that such translations are superior to or equal to the rhetoric employed by the Spirit in the text, and we believe that the employment of such hyper-specialized terminology in the regular teaching and preaching of the Church has the unfortunate effect of confusing the saints and of estranging them from contact with the biblical use of the same language. For this reason we reject the tendency to privilege the confessional and/or scholastic use of words and phrases over the way the same words and phrases are used in the Bible itself.How can the use of "philosophical" or "scholastic" language be profitable for "deal[ing] with certain problems and issues that arise in the history of the Church" if the laity, who live in history and face those problems, never learn anything of that language? And how can they learn that language if it never enters into the regular teaching and preaching of the church? Or are we supposed to believe that those "problems and issues" do not affect the laity?
I don't think it makes sense to speak of language or rhetoric as being objectively "the best". The authors of Scripture wrote with the language and rhetoric that was best for the times in which they were speaking. Although the Bible is for the whole church throughout the ages, and not just for the original audiences, its language and rhetoric bears the marks of its original contexts. The fact that it was written in Greek and Hebrew does not imply (I'm sure FVers would agree) that those languages are the best for expressing the Gospel in. And they certainly are not the best languages to use if you're preaching to Americans. Indeed English is superior to Koine Greek, if your goal happens to involve communicating with English speakers. It seems to me that the same could be said for higher-level language issues. The particular terminological decisions of the apostles were made in light of issues the church faced in the first century. Modern Christians face different issues (as well as some of the same issues). So it is at least possible that, in some cases, different terminology may be more effective in communicating the same gospel in a different historical context.
So far I have been assuming that the term "hyper-specialized" refers to all the "philosophical" and "scholastic" language referred to above (as the grammar of the sentence suggests), and that the prefix "hyper" is simply an unfortunate question-begging epithet. If, on the other hand, they only mean to say that you shouldn't get into theological esoterica ('hypostatic union', 'perichoresis') when teaching your average layman, then I doubt anyone will disagree. But that's not what the controversy is over. The controversy is over terms like 'justification' and 'election'. The theology that goes with these terms may be too much for the very youngest Christians. But one hopes that the laity make some progress in their years of being taught, and I think quite a few of them can handle at least the rudiments of systematic theology.
For these reasons I disagree with the claim that the use of technical theological terminology in the regular teaching and preaching of the Church "has the unfortunate effect of confusing the saints and of estranging them from contact with the biblical use of the same language." The reason the saints are estranged from contact with the biblical use of certain terms is that they don't read the Bible much. I would have things as they were in centuries past, among the Reformed, when ordinary people studied deeply both the Biblical texts and the theology by which the church tried to understand the prophetic-apostolic teaching systematically.
VI. I don't see anything in the next section that I disagree with.
VII. The next section is titled "Decrees and Covenant". Nothing in it is clearly wrong. But I'm not sure what it would mean to say the decrees "trump" the covenant, so I don't think it is very clear what they are denying there.
VIII. I agree with the section on the Church.
IX. I agree with the following section as well. And I also share the concern that the FV has about the way the visible/invisible distinction is used in some 19th/20th c. Reformed theological traditions in America. I disagree with anyone who denies that the visible church is the bride of Christ.
X. I agree with the section on Reformed Catholicity.
XI. But I'm not happy with the FV stance on the prelapsarian Covenant.
We affirm that Adam was in a covenant of life with the triune God in the Garden of Eden, in which arrangement Adam was required to obey God completely, from the heart. We hold further that all such obedience, had it occurred, would have been rendered from a heart of faith alone, in a spirit of loving trust. Adam was created to progress from immature glory to mature glory, but that glorification too would have been a gift of grace, received by faith alone. We deny that continuance in this covenant in the Garden was in any way a payment for work rendered. Adam could forfeit or demerit the gift of glorification by disobedience, but the gift or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements. In line with this, we affirm that until the expulsion from the Garden, Adam was free to eat from the tree of life. We deny that Adam had to earn or merit righteousness, life, glorification, or anything else.
I don't mind calling Adam's trust in God and in his promises "faith". But it is misleading to speak of him receiving the blessings of the Covenant of life by "faith alone". The traditional Protestant doctrine of sola fide, when it says that we receive salvation (under the new Covenant) by faith alone, means to deny that we are in a situation like the one Adam was in, in which his "trustful" obedience was a precondition for his receiving the blessing. In the Covenant of Life, there was no monergistic act of God that guaranteed the reception of the blessings. If Adam had remained faithful to the Covenant, this would have been through the synergistic activity (which, like our sanctification, and like everything else that comes to pass, would have been forordained by God, but would also have involved Adam's genuine moral activity) by which Adam would have had the graciously promised blessings. I think this is a significant disagreement, because of potential implications for what sola fide means under the new Covenant. If sola fide means nothing more, for us, than what (according to FV) was true of Adam, then I've got a serious problem. Our justification (which guarantees eternal life) is not dependent on our behavior. Though we shall be judged in accordance with our behavior, the verdict of that final judgment is guaranteed by the justification we already posess, irrespective of our behavior. But, if God had not forordained the fall, Adam's reception of glory would not have been guaranteed by anything irrespective of his behavior. It would have been guaranteed by a divine decree, but not one irrespective of his behavior; rather the decree would have been a decree about how he would behave.
For this reason, when FVers tell us they believe in sola fide, they have not yet distanced themselves from heresy in the Pelagian vicinity (even if they have shown that they don't believe exactly what Pelagius believed). That doesn't mean that FVers are heretics. It does mean that they should say more to assure us of their orthodoxy. For, by redefining sola fide, they have put themselves in a position where the question naturally arises: do they believe what was traditionally meant by sola fide? Or do they at least believe something close enough to it to guard against the sorts of heresy that sola fide, as traditionally undestood, guarded against? We cannot assume they are heretical, as has too often ben done, but we can ask the question. I see no evidence that FV as a whole is guilty of heresy here. (Section XVI elaborates further on this)
In addition, there seems to be a contradiction in saying, "Adam could forfeit or demerit the gift of glorification by disobedience, but the gift or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements." If Adam could demerit the gift by disobedience, then the gift (or the continued possession of it) was conditioned upon Adam's not demeriting it by disobedience. Certainly this is not work of supererogation -- it wouldn't give Adam a "positive" balance, so to speak. But I know of no Reformed thinker who says otherwise. Those who speak (contrary to FV) of Adam's "meriting" eternal life make it clear that he would have merited this, not by supererogation, but simply by maintaining a "zero" balance, so to speak. This is why they insist on the phrase "pactum merit". Here is their reasoning: If God promises "as long as you don't do wrong, I'll give you X" then, if you don't do wrong, God in some sense owes you X. Not because your behavior in itself deserves X as a reward, but solely because of the (conditional) promise God made -- that is, solely because of the pact. God owes you (in the non-absolute, pactum sense) X because he owes it to himself (in the absolute sense) to keep his promise. The only way I can see for FVers to maintain consistency here is if what they mean when they say "the gift or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements" is that it was not conditioned upon any positive, supererogatory, moral exertions or achievements. But in that they have not distinguished their view from the view of their opponents.
XII. I agree with the substance of the section on baptism. In the statement, "But we deny that trusting God's promise through baptism elevates baptism to a human work," there seems to be the hint that some Reformed people think otherwise. None do. For that reason, I would have left that sentence out. Though of course, I agree with what the sentence says.
XIII. I agree with everything in the section on the other sacrament, except for the bit about paedo-communion. I think they could have said more here to distinguish their high view of the sacrament's efficacy (which is in line with Calvin and most of the older Reformed tradition) from the views of some bits of more recent American Presbyterianism theology. And I would still agree with them if they had done so.
XIV. Union and Imputation: I agree with this section. But I would have a problem with most FV proponents when they start further elaborating on their particular views.
XV. Law and Gospel:
We affirm that those in rebellion against God are condemned both by His law, which they disobey, and His gospel, which they also disobey. When they have been brought to the point of repentance by the Holy Spirit, we affirm that the gracious nature of all God’s words becomes evident to them. At the same time, we affirm that it is appropriate to speak of law and gospel as having a redemptive and historical thrust, with the time of the law being the old covenant era and the time of the gospel being the time when we enter our maturity as God’s people. We further affirm that those who are first coming to faith in Christ frequently experience the law as an adversary and the gospel as deliverance from that adversary, meaning that traditional evangelistic applications of law and gospel are certainly scriptural and appropriate. We deny that law and gospel should be considered as a hermeneutics, or treated as such. We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful as good news, and that any passage, whether containing gospel promises or not, will be heard by the rebellious as intolerable demand. The fundamental division is not in the text, but rather in the human heart.
I'm not entirely clear on what it means to speak of law and gospel as a hermeneutic. But I do agree with FV in rejecting the Lutheran-ish view of law/gospel that some Reformed people take. As in many other loci, I line up with Calvin here. I don't think this is an earth-shattering issue.
XVI. Sola Fide:
We affirm that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone. Faith alone is the hand which is given to us by God so that we may receive the offered grace of God. Justification is God’s forensic declaration that we are counted as righteous, with our sins forgiven, for the sake of Jesus Christ alone. We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active and personally loyal faith. Justifying faith encompasses the elements of assent, knowledge, and living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer. We deny that faith is ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call.Certain opponents of the FV want to say that it is not as living that faith justifies. Justifying faith is indeed living and active, but, they say, it is not as active that it justifies, but only as passive and receptive. According to them, faith justifies only because by it we receive Christ. (analogy: suppose every working compass on this ship is painted red; the only non-red compasses are broken. This enables us to distinguish compasses that will function in helping the ship find its way from those that will not. Still, it is not as red things that the working compasses function in the navigation of the ship; it is only as indicating north that they play that role. In the same way, the fact that justifying faith is always living and active doesn't show that its life and activity have anything to do with our being justified by it, though it does enable us to distinguish true, justifying faith from false faith.)
The FV statement seems to be mounting an implicit argument against this. God gives only one kind of justifying faith, that justifying faith cannot be understood as anything other than justifying faith; anyone who understands it to be something other than what it really is misunderstands it. And justifying faith really is a living and active faith. FVers may wish to infer from these things that it is as living and active that faith is the sole instrument of justification. That would be unsound. To see why, without getting into logical details, think about red compasses.
I don't know whether the FVers or their opponents are right here. All I'm saying is that the implicit argument that FVers seem to be making doesn't work.
What if the FVers are right? What if it is as living and active that faith plays its role as instrument of justification? The more important question then arises: does this mean a) it plays this role by producing an obedience that is distinct (but not separate) from the living faith that produces it, so that obedience does not itself become an aspect of the instrument of justification, or b) is obedience itself included in the aliveness of faith, so that that faithful obedience functions, together with the rest of what faith is, as instrument of justification?
It seems to me that (b) is wrong, and is seriously unReformed. But the statement doesn't affirm (b). I think there is a legitimate worry that some people associated with FV might hold to something like (b). But, as far as I can see, that position cannot be pinned on FV as such. An FVer who affirms (a) has relieved us of the worry I raised in section XI. He has already affirmed (in XVII) that "those who have been justified by God’s grace through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are saved to the uttermost and will spend eternity with Christ and his saints in glory forever." From this it follows that whatever is the sole instrument of justification is that through which alone (instrumentally speaking) eternal life is forensically guaranteed. And since, in affirming (a), he has said that obedience is not part of, but is rather a result of, the faith that is the sole instrument by which eternal life is forensically guaranteed, he has distinguished our situation from that of Adam by telling us that we have a guarantee Adam didn't have -- a guarantee that is not only unmerited, but also undemeritable, and this not simply because of God's sovereign decree that we will continue in faithful obedience, but because we have received Christ, by faith, and in receiving him we have received that irrevocable guarantee, our faithful obedience playing no instrumental role in our reception of Christ or of that guarantee that is in Christ. This is what was important in sola fide, which was left out of FV use of that term.
XVII Assurance: No disagreement from me here.
XVIII Apostacy: I agree with this as well.
XVIV. Intramural: I have disgreements with certain segments of the FV. In particular, I disagree strongly with any one who won't affirm the meritorious character of Christ's work on our behalf. And I disagree strongly with anyone who denies that human beings have a nature or essence, or who denies that there is, in any sense, a change of nature involved in the passage from darkness to light. (We were, by nature, objects of wrath.)
Chris, thanks for the kind words about my blog.
Two quick comments, and perhaps we could discuss other things in more depth as time allows. The second quick comment may serve as a useful launching-off point for further discussion.
First, regarding section XII, the reason the FV joint statement includes that sentence that you suggest they should have left out ("But we deny that trusting God's promise through baptism elevates baptism to a human work") is because they are trying to head off at the pass a certain rebuttal that some critics of FV have raised about the 'FV' (i.e., traditional Reformed) position on baptism. They aren't so much worried that some Reformed people make baptism a human work, and thus are concerned to separate themselves from them. Rather, they are denying that their view entails that baptism is a work. This was a necessary thing for the FV statement to point out, because there are unfortunately critics of FV who have tried to pin this implication onto FV thinkers and writers. The sorite goes something like this: "Oh, but if you FV guys believe that people come into the covenant through baptism, then you are saying that they come into the covenant through a human work, and so you believe in a justification by works." The argument assumes that baptism is a human work, which is of course false and most unReformed and I don't even think that the critics who make this argument actually believe it. But these are strange times we are living in, I guess. Sometimes the rhetoric runs loose all on its own. :-)
Second, your remarks about Section XVI are incisive and I think you are spot on to point out that FVers do not need to be read as affirming (b) (and in fact I think they explicitly reject that position). And you also go on to say that if they affirm (a) that they overcome some earlier difficulties you had raised, and so I think there we have it: the FV position on sola fide is not problematic.
The only thing I would add here is that your choices of (a) and (b) might need some refining, though they are already useful as you've presented them. The question is not whether obedience is a 'part' or a 'result' of faith, but whether it is a 'part' of faith insofar as faith is used instrumentally in our justification before God. In other words, at least some FVers (Wilson has done a number of posts on this) would hold that obedience IS in fact a 'part' of faith, in the sense that faith itself is a living trust. Faith is a living and trusting kind of thing, essentially, which means that in some sense it is an obeying kind of thing. But this 'obeying' element of faith is not what God 'looks at' when He declares us righteous. He declares us righteous solely through the instruementation of the faith that He gives us, but this faith is an obedient kind of thing by its very nature. But its obedience is not why (it plays no part) God justifies us. I think putting things this way still captures the spirit of your option (a). Don't you?
Posted by: Xon at October 6, 2007 01:59 AMNo, I don't think it captures the spirit of (a), I think it instead answers a prior question, and that (a) and (b) don't even arise if you answer the prior question that way.
... the prior question being, "Is it as living and active that faith is instrumental in justification?" If you answer Yes to that question, then the further question arises, "How is it's aliveness/activity involved in faith insofar as it is the instrument of justification". Which gives us (a) or (b). But if you answer No to the prior question, then (a) and (b) aren't on the table.
You seem to be saying that Wilson at least answers No to the prior question. But then there seems to be no disagreement with FV opponents, in which case, why say, "We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active and personally loyal faith." This seems to deliberately slur over the distinction you made (and attiributed to Wilson). That ambiguous phrase "understood as" ...
If FV is meant to include the view you described, wouldn't it be better to say "We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification and the only kind of faith God gives, is ever anything other than a living, active and personally loyal faith." For that faith can be "understood as" other than living and active, in the sense that it can be considered in abstraction from being living and active. In fact, that's how God considers it, in justification.
Some of the opponents of FV have been pretty inept in their attempts to express this. Apparently someone made the embarrassing statement that, though the faith of justification is not a dead faith, it is a "non-alive" faith. But I take it this is just a muddled way of trying to say say the same thing you said. Remeber the trouble Locke got into by talking as if a triangle could be neither equilateral nor scalene nor obtuse. Same deal here. Not that such a triangle can exist in reality, not that justifying faith can exist in the man justified without being a living faith. But the triangle can be "none of the above" in thought, just as justifying faith can be "non-alive" in the mind of God, forensically, which is precisely where it plays its role as instrument of justification.
Posted by: ChrisMcC at October 9, 2007 07:35 PMRegarding XII: I see the attempt to head off an argument against FV. But I think the argument is being misrepresented. And I think the language does suggest that FV opponents (implicitly) hold that trusting God's promises through baptism makes baptism a human work. That is, the language of the FV statement sounds like it's saying, "we FV folks teach that [and then comes a short phrase to summarize the teaching] Christians should trust God's promises through baptism. Our opponents oppose that teaching of ours, saying that we are making baptism into a human work. So they must think that that trusting God's promises through baptism makes baptism a human work. How outrageous." Even if this isn't what the authors intended, I think it is suggested by the language. And, though you are more careful, you may be guilty of a lesser misunderstanding in the same vein, when you say the anti-FV arguments assume what the anti-FVers don't really believe: that baptism is a human work. I think their argument is more subtle.
Human beings do do something in baptism. The minister does something with water, and it's kind of important that he say something about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, right? (In fact, doen't he usually say "I baptize you ..." ?) OK, so, whatever we make of that obvious stuff, FV proponents teach that baptism does something ex opere operato. But any "ex opere operato" doctrine (not just the RC sort) involves making God's promise inseparable from, and therefore (anti-FV folks would say) dependent on, a human act done in baptizing. I do not endorse this argument. But some people do. And I think they really believe it. Why shouldn't they? The argument doesn't assume that "baptism is a human work" in any unReformed sense. Maybe it assumes the conditional statement, "If baptism works ex opere operato then it is a human work". But that ain't the same thing.
And I don't think it does much good to say "We don't believe that we are trusting human works." Neither do Roman Catholics. Neither do Arminians, when they deny irresistable grace, and put a human act -- the act of an as yet unredeemed person -- in a place where it can say yea or nay to salvation. But most Reformed folks would say that, to the extent that they believe that, they are really trusting a human work, whether they admit it or not. FV opponents are saying something similar about FV.
Posted by: ChrisMcC at October 9, 2007 08:03 PMChris, very incisive comments. Would that all discussion in this controversy could go the same way!
(By the way, I totally thought you bested Plantinga regarding compatibilism vs. incompatibilism that day we were having lunch in the Notre Dame cafeteria back in the summer of 1999. I'm not buttering you up or anything, am I?)
Seriously, I need to think some more about how best to respond to your comments regarding faith and obedience.
Regarding baptism as a human work, my first general comment is that I agree that the FV statement could be more precise in a few places. But it was a consensus document, and not really intended (if my understanding is correct) too terribly precise. It was meant to provide a central 'text' that could be cited as a source for FV views, so that further discussion can launch off from there rather than starting with "I hear you guys are heretics; aren't you?"
That said, I think you probably put the anti-FV argument more accurately than I originally did. But I still think that that's the argument that the FV statement was trying to cut off at the pass when they included that sentence. ("But we deny that trusting God's promise through baptism elevates baptism to a human work"). I tihnk what they meant here is that they are denying that trusting in God's promise through baptism elevates baptism to a meritorious human work, as though it becomes a work that somehow 'earns' something from God. In any case, though, I appreciate that they didn't say this explicitly (though I'm almost positive that's what was intended). I also recognize that I wasn't very clear-headed in my earlier statement. And finally I recognize (thankfully) that you don't endorse the anti-FV argument on this point anyway (which really is an unimpressive argument).
Posted by: Xon at October 10, 2007 11:45 PMI hope it won't seem ungrateful to pile on another criticism (after you've been so nice to me), but I don't think the position you attributed to Wilson is one he actually holds. You said,
The question is not whether obedience is a 'part' or a 'result' of faith, but whether it is a 'part' of faith insofar as faith is used instrumentally in our justification before God. In other words, at least some FVers (Wilson has done a number of posts on this) would hold that obedience IS in fact a 'part' of faith, ... But its obedience is not why (it plays no part [I take it you mean instrumentally -cjm]) God justifies us.
Wilson writes,
I have no problem granting that the aliveness of the faith is not the ground of our justification, just as the faith itself is not. God does not look at the aliveness of the faith and say, "Good job there, Wilson!" He does not accept me on the ground of anything in me, including my faith or the aliveness thereof. But He does justify me through the instrumentality of my faith and the aliveness thereof. (from More FV Qualifications, emphasis added)
From the bit I italicized, it seems clear that Wilson does believe that aliveness is part of faith insofar as it is instrumental in justification. He only denies that it is part of faith insofar as faith is the ground of justification (and that for the very good reason that faith isn't the ground of justification).
Perhaps he has asserted the position you attributed to him elsewhere (any chance you could give us a more specific reference?). If so, I think he must either have changed his mind at some point, or else he's being inconsistent.
Posted by: Chris McC at October 18, 2007 03:05 PMFrom the bit I italicized, it seems clear that Wilson does believe that aliveness is part of faith insofar as it is instrumental in justification.
Aliveness IS a part of true saving faith. Faith must be alive, or else it is not true saving faith. Aliveness is a necessary characteristic of faith.
But this does not require that aliveness be the instrument, or part of the instrument, of our justification, in that God can choose not to 'regard' the aliveness of our faith (even though it is a necessary characteristic). And I don't think Wilson's quote you cited is inconsistent with this interpretation. The instrument of our justification is the true saving faith that God gives us, and this true saving faith is necessarily living (alive, it has the property of 'aliveness'). So the aliveness of faith is part of the instrumentality through which God justifies us (i.e., "He does justify me through the instrumentality of my faith and the aliveness thereof.") But it is not the 'reason' or the 'principle' on which God makes the righteous reckoning of our account. "Xon has faith, which applies the righteousness of Christ to His account. That faith which Xon has is necessarily alive."
There might be a tension here, but I don't see a formal contradiction. But it gets to be a pretty scholastic discussion!
I'll try to find a reference for this a bit later.
Posted by: Xon at October 25, 2007 04:45 PMFormal contradiction is pretty easy to avoid; just make a distinction without a difference. But I think I've seen you use this phrase "formal contradiction" elswhere to mean what I would just call a "contradiciton". So what do we have here? First, "this does not require [and I think you're implying furthermore that it isn't true] that aliveness be the instrument, or part of the instrument, of our justification" and then "So the aliveness of faith is part of the instrumentality through which God justifies us". This is not a contradiction? Are you makining some kind of subtle distinction between "instrument" and "instrumentality"?
I certainly agree with you that aliveness is a necessary characteristic of justifying faith. But that doesn't get at the question of whether it is part of that faith insofar as that faith is instrumental in justification. Every triangule is trilateral. Necessarily so. But it is the triangularity of the metal traingle I'm squeezing, not its trilaterality, that accounts for the three bloody points on my hand. So your inference ("The instrument of our justification is the true saving faith that God gives us, and this true saving faith is necessarily living... So the aliveness of faith is part of the instrumentality through which God justifies us") is not valid. I affirm the premises, and deny the conclusion. If you or Wilson affirm the conclusion then I think you must choose between (a) and (b). If the aliveness of faith is "part of the instrumentality through which God justifies us" does this mean that our faithful obedience is "part of the instrumentality through which God justifies us"? Or does it mean only that what inevitably produces faithful obedience -- the living trustfulness of faith -- is "part of the instrumentality through which God justifies us"? I still think the former is seriously unReformed.
In saying that aliveness is "not the 'reason' or the 'principle' on which God makes the righteous reckoning of our account", you seem to be denying that aliveness is a certain kind of ground of justification -- which is (still) not to the point. Is faith itself the 'reason' or 'principle' on which God makes the righteous reckoning of our account? I would say, No, faith is only the instrument by which God makes the righteous reckoning of our account. It is that by means of which we are justified, not that because of which we are justified. Neither faith nor its aliveness are the 'reason' or 'principle' of justification. Faith -- living faith -- is the instrument. But is it's aliveness part of its instrumentality? That's what we're (supposed to be) discussing.
We may be discussing it in a scholastic way (which I think is the right way to discuss things when there's danger of systematic misunderstanding) but I don't think it's a trifle. I'm open to the possibility that something other than my (a) can do the work (a) does. But if not, then, if there are any in the FV-conversation who reject (a), having also rejected what I think is the right answer to the prior question, then what they are teaching is in conflict with something at the heart of the Reformed doctrine of sola fide.
Posted by: Chris McC at October 25, 2007 10:12 PMAbout the reference: don't put yourself to too much trouble on my account. For now, I'm happy with discussing whether the view is logically consistent, regardless of whether or not Wilson holds it. If that's what you want.
Posted by: Chris McC at October 27, 2007 12:55 PMA man after my own heart!
Posted by: Xon at October 30, 2007 02:42 PMChris,
I don't know how, but I completely misunderstood your analysis when I first read it. I just now re-read your section on sola fide and the "red compass" analogy struck me as entirely new! I don't know if I just forgot it, or if somehow I missed that entire paragraph when I read your post the first time, or what.
I agree with the red compass analogy, more or less, as an accurate summary of the life and activeness of faith. (With the one exception that the aliveness and life of faith are not merely accidental qualities, like redness. They are necessary qualities. But the analogy still holds, obviously.) And, I think that FVers like Doug Wilson believe it, too. You say that the FVers in their joint statement seem to be mounting an implicit argument against that view, but I don't think that's true. In fact, the debates I've seen between Wilson and some anti-FVers on his blog show Wilson arguing for something very similar to the red compass analogy, while those certain critics deny that the compasses are red at all. Truthfully, I think these critics are in the minority, and that ultimately FVers and mainstream anti-FVers agree on this issus. Justification is by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is a faith which is necessarily living and active.
All I have been trying to say with my not-so-clearly-worded mumblings about how God 'doesn't take into account' the aliveness of our faith, or how suc haliveness is not the 'reason' God uses to decide to justify us, etc., is this same point you are making about red compasses. The only faith that justifies is a faith that has a necessary quality of aliveness, but the aliveness plays no role in the faith being accepted and used instrumentally by God for our justification. The aliveness is there, necessarily, but it plays no role in justification.
This is what I understand Wilson's view to be.
Posted by: Xon at November 1, 2007 10:38 AMWhat you say about my "red compasses" analogy is precisely correct. In fact, everything you say in your Nov 1 about faith and its aliveness in relation to justification seems to agree exactly with my view. The only thing that doesn't make sense is how you think that could be compatible with what Wilson said, quoted by me (Oct 18), and sumarize by you (Oct 25): "the aliveness of faith is part of the instrumentality through which God justifies us."
The context of the Wilson quote was his discussion with Lane Keister. He and Wilson agree that justifying faith is always alive. Nevertheless, Wilson thinks a disagreement remains -- one which he thinks is "not insurmountable". Here, let me quote Wilson more fully:
The last question concerns of the "aliveness" of justifying faith. Lane and I agree that the sole instrument of justification is faith, and we both agree that this faith is alive, and not dead. But we do have a disagreement after this, although I do not believe it is insurmountable.Lane says:
"My position is that it is not its aliveness which makes it fit for justification, although justifying faith is always alive.""However, it is not because it is alive that it is the instrument of justification, but because it receives and rests on Christ that it justifies."
"By saying 'because of aliveness' one has introduced a ground that is different from Christ's righteousness. This is not sound."
Here's the difficulty. I have no problem granting that the aliveness of the faith is not the ground of our justification, just as the faith itself is not. God does not look at the aliveness of the faith and say, "Good job there, Wilson!" He does not accept me on the ground of anything in me, including my faith or the aliveness thereof. But He does justify me through the instrumentality of my faith and the aliveness thereof. Lane appears to worry that people might get the wrong idea from this aliveness, and set themselves up to boast. This is a mistake, I grant, but our ability to screw the theology up does not even slow God down. Far more people have made this same mistake with regard to faith than they have with faith and aliveness. But God established faith as the instrument anyway. When Lane says, "This is not sound," I would urge him to defer judgment until after he has asked a few more questions. "Do you believe that the faith which is the instrument of justification is always alive?" Yes. "Do you believe that God looks on this aliveness as part of His ground in justifying?" Not at all. "Do you believe that a living faith is a ground of justification or an instrument of justification?" An instrument only. And I cannot for the life of me see how such answers even begin to threaten the doctrine of sola fide.
I know we're more interested in discussing the logical relation of the ideas here, but at this point it seems quotes from Wilson are necessary. I'll try to find them, but here is a quick review of how my own memory is filling this in for me at present, and thus why I have been trying to defend Wilson's view in the way I have.
Several months ago, Wilson came up against some nonfamous but zealous anti-FVers (who seemed to be, vagueness of the appelation aside, 'hyper-Calvinists') in the comments on his blog, as well as against some of the blogged musings of R S Clark and (perhaps) a few other prominent anti-FVers. In short, these folks espouse what can be called the 'nanosecond' view of faith and works. The idea is that, at the moment of our definitive justification, faith is without works. Sanctification (and works) begin immediately after, perhaps, but the two are not necessarily connected. I'm not doing full justice to the nuances of the view, obviously, but this really was discussed on Wilson's blog. Some of these critics also went so far as to seem to deny that regeneration precedes faith (I'm thinking of RS Clark here especially, who seemed to say this b/c he wanted to insist that faith is given to a person with no holiness of any kind...) Wilson's point here, and he also quoted an article that John Piper wrote recently, is that works, or life, or obedience, or holiness, is always part of true saving faith. The life and holiness are always there. But those things don't play any 'role' in God's accepting us as righteous, etc.
I think that perhaps in the mutual interaction that produced the joint FV statement this point got lost. Or even that Wilson hasn't made himself clear enough on this point in some subsequent writings. But I've been reading everything he writes with his earlier comments in mind, although perhaps I've been doing that unsuccessfully and perhaps Wilson has contradicted himself from then to now. ??
Posted by: Xon at November 10, 2007 09:37 PMOK.
Your reading does make good sense of the last sentence in that section of the FV statement, "We deny that faith is ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call." And, certainly, if anyone thinks there is literally a "nanosecond" during which faith is alone in the person justified, that's unReformed (though in a pretty trivial way, I think; it doesn't seem like it could do much harm to Christ's sheep). But the very notion of measuring such things by a stopwatch seems so odd that I'd be inclined to look for a non-literal interpretation of that kind of talk. And I think I can see one close at hand: Theologians have long been in the habit of using language of temporal ordering to express relations of non-temporal, logical order (e.g. the supra/infra debate); maybe when people talk about a "moment" at which faith is apart from works they are talking about a logical "moment".
To spell out the parallel: On the supra scheme, "when" God decreeed the reprobation of the non-elect, he had not "yet" decreed the fall. What this means is that God did not consider the reprobate as fallen in decreeing their reprobation. Similarly one might claim that there is a logical moment "when" God justifies someone by faith without aliveness, and then "later" the faith becomes living and active -- as it necessarily must [just as, on the supra scheme, God necessarily must get around to decreeeing the fall, lest his decree of reprobation be unjust]. And what this means is that God does not consider the believer's faith as living and active in decreeing his justification.
And that's equivalent to the red-compass thing that we agree with each other about.
Posted by: Chris McC at December 11, 2007 03:36 PMI just did a little scanning thru the HeidelBlog. Although I couldn't find any "nanosecond" talk, what I did find seemed to be straightforwardly in line with what I said about red compasses. Which is not surprising, since it's a pretty standard Reformed-scholastic move. e.g. this post. ... aha! I just dug back a bit further and I think I found the stuff you were referring to. Let me go read it and I'll get back to you.
Posted by: Chris McC at December 11, 2007 04:27 PM