Dr. Waters is A Debtor to Mercy Alone

Dr. Guy Waters was recently interviewed on his chapter in Risking the Truth titled, "A Debtor to Mercy Alone." This new book has an interesting layout in that it is set up like an interview. The author is asked a series of questions and then gives a response. This gives the book a more conversational feel. The audio of this interview can be found here (do not worry when you hear the people speaking Spanish, the interview was done on a Spanish speaking radio station). The interview also covers the Federal Vision and the New Perspective(s) on Paul. Dr. Waters takes a balanced and even handed approach to both of these movements in the interview, which should be commended.

How Not to Apologize

Our readers will surely know that I am not an advocate of the Federal Vision, but this video is ridiculous. This is a prime example of how not to engage in a theological debate.

The Federal Vision Debate: The Covenant of Grace

Do all New Covenant Members Persevere onto Final Salvation?

Part 1
Part 2

Part 3

I. The Nature of the Triune God (Isa 6:3)
Holy and Just
Personal and Relational, which includes love and goodness
Therefore His Relationship to His creation most be holy and just

II. Bicovenantalism
Covenant of Works
Covenant of Grace
Mono-covenantalism denies Law – Gospel distinction

III. Overview of Covenants
Edenic Covenant (Works)
Adamic Covenant (Promise)
Noahic Covenant (Dominion)
Abrahamic Covenant (Royal Grant)
Mosaic Covenant (Typological Kingdom)
Davidic Covenant (Messianic)
New Covenant (Salvation)

IV. Ordo Salutis and Historia Salutis (Gal 3:29)
Man is always saved the same way (ordo salutis)
But the Covenant of Grace matures in redemptive History (Historia Salutis)
Old Testament Covenants fulfilled in Christ

V. Constitution of the New Covenant (Heb 8:10-12)
In Christ’s blood
Entirely salvific
All in the covenant are saved
No covenant breakers

VI. Therefore all New Covenant Members will persevere onto to final salvation

The Federal Vision Debate: The Covenant of Works

Covenant Of Works Defended

Listen to Part 1

Listen to Part 2


I. Adam under a Covenant of Works Hosea 6:7
A. Like Adam Israel broke the Covenant
B. Job 31:33 as Adam
C. Rom 5:14 Solidarity between Adam and Christ

II. Works of the Law (Gal 3:5,12)
A. Works is obedience to the commandments (Gal 3:12)
B. Not based upon faith
C. Faith is antithetical to works
D. Faith is an empty hand

III. Strict Justice (Gal 3:10-12)
A. Cursed is He who breaks the Law (Jam 2:10-11)
B. Eternal Punishment is strict justice (Rev 20:11-15)
C. Wages for work rendered is not grace but justice (Rom 4:4)

IV. Meritorious (Rom 5:18, 7:10)
A. The Law is ordained to life (Rom 7:10)
B. Can earn eternal life by keeping all the law (Mark 10:17-21)
C. Full obedience would have resulted in Adams justification (Rom 5:18)

V. The Covenant Grace
A. Only exists in the context of satisfied justice (Rom 3:25)
B. Covenant of Grace is demerited favor (Eph 2:1-8)
C. Justification is not maintained through faithful obedience (Phillip 3:7-10)
D. Justification is not eschatological (Rom 5:1)

John Murray's Exceptions

It's been said,
many times,
many ways...


I have heard, mainly from those in the so-called "Federal Vision," many times that John Murray took a number of exceptions with the Westminster Standards. The story goes that Murray took, some say 5 and others 95, exceptions with Standards. I have looked for these exceptions, but to no avail. Does anyone know where, if at all, this story can be shown true or false?

The Upper Register Looked Upon on Me

I opened my email this morning and found my inbox flooded (well, for me it was flooded) with comments to a blog I wrote back in May, Federal Vision's Trajectory. Upon reading the comments I discovered that Lee Irons (who I mentioned in the post as an example) commented on this post on his blog, The Upper Register. I am grateful that a theologian of Irons caliber thought one of my posts was worth commenting on, even if it was to disagree with me. I have responded in the comment section of the original post, you can find my comments, as well as other's, by clicking here.

Sacraments and the PCA GA

This year at the PCA general assembly there was a culoquium (an academic "get-together") on the Sacraments. The audio for all five sessions can be found here. All and all the papers that were given were good (a few points that I did not agree with, but they were addressed in the Q & A time) and the atmosphere was very Christ exulting.

During the Question and Answer section of the culoquium Dr. Ligon Duncan made a passing remark about the nature of the sacraments. He said that the sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper, are not "justificational;" rather they should be understood as "sanctificational" (as a side note, one of the coolest things about theologians is the fact that they get to make up new words!). This language and understanding of the sacraments is a good way to understand the efficacy (the "working-ness") of the sacraments. However, some do not think the sacraments are "simply concerned with 'sanctification.'"

Those who want to understand the sacraments as more than sanctification agree that there is an aspect of justification to the sacraments.

Baptism does not just convey the message of “You are holy.” It does not only say, “You are set apart from the world.” It also says, “Your sins are forgiven.” So too with the Eucharist. “This is my body, broken for you.” “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for the remission of sins.”

Those are “justificational” ideas.

The problem, as I understand it, with this view is it misses the role of justification in our sanctification. If you notice in the argument that our "sins are forgiven." This is in the past. In other words, baptism reminds us, if we have faith and repent of our sins, that we are forgiven. This is not properly understood as justification, but rather as reminding us of our justification, which is sanctification. It seems to me to be misunderstanding that fact that part of sanctification is being reminded, daily, that we are justified. This is not the same thing as saying that sanctification has aspects of justification in it. It is right to say that these are "justificational" ideas, but it still remains that the the sacraments are dealing with sanctification, and not justification proper.

Green Baggins Shout Out

The other day I was on Doug Wilson's blog and left a few comments on a post he wrote in response to Lane Kiester from the Green Baggins. When I opened my RSS read last night, I saw that Lane had responded to Dougs post on his own blog. As I read Lane's response I was a bit shocked and pleasantly please to see that he mentioned my comments from Doug's blog, not once, but twice.

I say all this only so I can brag! No really, the reason I bring this up is that I think the exchange that Lane and Doug are having on their respective blogs is a very helpful one. The issues of faith and works/obedience that are being discussed are important issues. And in this discussion I think that Lane is on the right track. I hope our readers will take the time to read the interaction between these two Christian brothers. It will prove to be time well spent.

Federal Vision's Trajectory

I have been doing a lot of thinking over the past few months about the Federal Vision. One area in particular, namely, most in the Reformed camp believe that the FV is outside of the bounds of the Reformed tradition, while all those in the FV claim that they are clearly within it.

As I have been pondering this issue one reason seems to fit best with what is going on. I want to share this reason with our readers so we can discuss this point. I am not saying that this is how it must be, nor am I saying this is how it is, but rather, I am suggesting one possible way to explain this phenomenon within Reformed circles.

Many in the FV point back to John Murray as their theological root. That is, those in the FV believe that they are in the theological trajectory of John Murray. This may be the case. However, those in the FV have moved past Murray on issues of the Covenant and other key Reformed distinctives. Even though those in the FV can point back to Murray as their theological ancestor, they have moved far enough past him to put themselves outside of the camp.
Another example of this may be Lee Irons (I am not up on all the ins-and-outs of what happened with him, but I do know that the OPC saw fit to remove him from their denomination.), Irons stands in the theological trajectory of Meridith Kline, who is well within the Reformed tradition. Irons can point back and show who his thought is rooted in Kline, but, as the OPC decided, he is outside of the Reformed tradition.

I think something similar is going on with the Federal Vision. I think they can look back to Murray and pick out a few of his thoughts and "develop" them to the point that that are outside of the Reformed Camp. Those in the FV are unaware of this because they think they are just following Murray, but, what they do not understand is they have taken Murray in a direction that leads them outside of the Reformed tradition, a place Murray did not go.

Again, this is just a "theory" that I have about why the FV thinks they are within the Reformed camp, while the majority in that camp believe them to be out of it. I am trying to make sense of this "mess" and this has been helpful for me to understand what is going on.

Lord, Lord...I Never Knew You!

Two verses (not just these two) seem to do massive damage to the Federal Vision: 1 John 2:19 and Mathew 7:22-23.
I would like to comment briefly on the Mathew passage here (and I will comment on the 1 John passage in the future).

On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”

The context of this passage is the Kingdom of God and how we know who is in and who is not in this Kingdom. Jesus declares that you will know who is in by their fruit (v. 20). Then here, Jesus tells us that some, on the last day, at the judgment, will argue with him. They will argue that they should be numbered among God’s people. Jesus’ response to these false professors is that he never knew them.

Now, if the FV is right, Jesus’ response does not seem right. If the FV is right, Jesus should have said, “I knew you, but only in a sense.” But that is not his response. Jesus says that he never knew them. As is, there was no time in which I knew you. These men had all the outward evidence of being one on the “in.” They prophesy, they cast out demons and they do many mighty works. This group surely would have been part of the “visible” Church. Those who had all the outward signs of being ‘in’ Christ, but the Lord Jesus Christ tells them that he never knew them.

Dr. Thomas Sharpens

Dr. Derek Thomas from Reformed Theological Seminary was on the radio program Iron Sharpens Iron. They discussed 'heresy.' The program can be found here.

Of particular note is his fine discussion, toward the end, of the Federal Vision in response to a caller. He shows great wisdom in handling this controversial issue.

Federal Vision and 'Biblical Language'

There are many in the Federal Vision movement who are advocates of using ‘biblical language’ in our theology. That is, they want our theology to sound more like the Bible. On the surface this sounds very right—very pious. Why would anyone want to have a theology that does not ‘speak the way the Bible speaks?’ However, there are two huge problems with this.

First, a person can use biblical language and not mean what the Bible means. A clear example of this is the Arian controversy. Those who supported Arianism wanted to quote Bible verses about Jesus being a human and use that language. They highlighted those passages and that kind of ‘biblical language’ to the exclusion of other passages. This is why the Church held councils to hammer out this issue. This is why these councils used nonbiblical (not unbiblical) language such as homoousias, this was to keep or protect the biblical teaching. So to with the FV issue, just because someone is using the same words the Bible is (i.e. ‘elect,’ ‘baptism’) does not mean they are teaching the same thing the Bible is.

Second, this misses the whole point of theology. Theology is the Christian discipline of clarifying and systematizing the teaching of the Bible. In order to do this, by necessity, one has to use nonbiblical words. If all a person does is use ‘biblical language’ then they have done nothing to clarify the Word of God. The Bible can be confusing at times and it is the point of theology to use different words and different constructions to clarify the Word of God. The key is to be saying the same thing the Bible does, but in language that people can understand.

Hopefully this will move the conversation with the FVers forward and we can get to the heart of the issue and that is, who is saying what the Bible says.

No One Gets Us

Last November at the PCA’s general assembly, the PCA passed the Ad Interim Study Committee’s paper on the Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies. This paper, in essence, rejected the views of the Federal Vision, in all its forms, and the New Perspectives on Paul.

Since this paper came out those who are in the Federal Vision (FV) have set their guns against this document. They have leveled many charges against the paper and the Study Committee: the committee was stacked, they misrepresented our views, they did not contact us to get clarification or to see if we really held to the views they said we did.

This last charge is one I would like to discuss because to my mind it is the weakest of the charges, yet it is the one I hear most often. First, why does the Study Committee need to contact you about your views? As Steve Wilkins put it in his resent letter addressing why this Church (Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church) left the PCA, “the PCA Study Committee, which had judged me to be out of accord with our confessional standards without asking for clarification or for a response on my part…” I do not understand why the committee needed to speak with those who are apart of the FV. They have written a book, many blogs and/or lectures on these issues. Are their writings that unclear? Are their lectures so muddy that a person cannot listen to them and understand their position on a given point? It seems, at times, as if the FVers are saying that you cannot understand a person’s views unless you speak to them. If this is the case, then we can know nothing about anyone’s views that is passed. This is simply untrue. I can, for example, read Calvin and know what he thought about a certain issue. I do not need to call him up on the phone and talk to him to clarify his views. Now, if I did not understand Calvin it would be good to seek clarity. So to, the Study Committee could, if they so desired, have spoken with those men who they were writing about, but there is no moral or intellectual necessity that they do so.

Secondly, it does seem that the FVers think, maybe subconsciously, that they are unclear. The reason I say this is two fold: first, because they want everyone to speak to them for clarity and second, to my knowledge, there is not a single FVer who states that a person on the other side understands their view. In other words, according to the FVers, they are the only ones who understand their position. To disagree with them is, in essence, to not understand them. This is most unfortunate. Writing and lectures are the best way to get your point across clearly and preciously. But the FVers seem to be unable to get their whole system out there for public view in a clear manner. The reason for this, I fear, is that their system is contradictory. That is, the Federal Vision, as a whole, has internal inconsistencies. This is most obvious by their views of a quasi baptismal regeneration and their understanding of justification by faith alone.

Regardless of the consistency of the Federal Vision, this charge that the PCA Study Committee needed to contact these men needs to be dropped. This is simply rhetoric that takes away from the main issues of the truthfulness and confessionalness of the Federal Vision.

The Federal Vision Heats Up

A recent blog article at the Green Bagginses points to some comments that James Jordan has made on this blog. Many of the comments by Jordan have been deleted, but a few are still there at the original site. Either way, Andy Webb from the Green Bagginses has them posted on his site.

Now, before reading anymore, you must read Jordan's comments. Some of them are so outrageous that my commentary will be of little help if Jordan's remarks are not squarely in view.

Go read it...

Did you read it???

Good, you can proceed.

There are two main thoughts that come to my mind in this situation. The first is that we have moved way beyond discussing the issues and have clearly moved into the ad hominem phase of this controversy. Now clearly not everyone involved in this controversy is 'throwing mud.' There are men on both sides of this issue who are handling this with great respect and integrity. One such man is Dr. Guy Waters. It seems that everyone feels like he is the 'whipping boy' of the TR's. At every turn people are taking shots at him. The recent article in the Westminster Theological Journal that reviews his book on the FV is a great example of this. But despite all the attacks against him, I have never heard, see or read him say anything negative about the so-called 'FV guys.' Sure he has said thing about their views, but there has never been one personal attack that I am aware of. I am sure that he has not said anything close to the level of James Jordon's most recent comments. I think that everyone in this debate could learn a few things from Dr. Waters. If you agree with his views or not, he has constantly shown Christian character throughout this controversy.

The second thought I have is that I am, on one level, glad that Jordan said what he did. Before you jump on me for this comment, let me explain. There are many on the FV side of this issue that seem to think (and the repeat over and over) that the TR's are the only ones 'throwing mud.' Clearly Jordan is not the first FVer to lower to this level, but those who are sympathetic to the FV always find a way to see their guys in a positive light and the TR's in a negative light. With these comments by Jordan, there is no way that they can be spun to not look like mud throwing.

Now given the big picture, I wish all sides, including Jordan, could carry this discussion on with Christian character. Remembering that the greatest of these is Love. When I first read Jordan's comments, I was truly saddened by them. I was saddened to see the discussion come to this level. But to Jordan's credit, it appears, that he did delete many of the comments. This may be the lowest point in the debate, but it could be on a up swing. We can only watch and pray.

For Those of You New to the Whole Federal Vision

R. Scott Clark has posted a great summary and "re-cap" of the federal vision controversy. If you are not sure what this is all about this post is for you. Here is a sample,

The FV movement was (and is) disparate. Some of the leaders lack formal theological education (e.g. Doug Wilson). Some have PhDs (e.g. Peter Leithart and Jeff Myers). Their original claim to be recovering historic Reformed Christianity is no longer tenable so now they generally claim to be discovering a “more biblical” form of Christianity, to be carrying on the work of Reformation. The claim to have discovered something new and interesting and to be more biblical, of course, attracts attention from, if I may be blunt, naive evangelicals who don’t know the Reformation or the history of Reformed theology and exegesis in the first place but who are perhaps attracted to the doctrine of predestination and disposed toward novelty already.

The difficulty with the claim to be reforming the Reformed churches, of course, is that the FV ends up advocating views already considered and rejected by the Reformed churches. Most of what the FV is peddling is little different in substance from what the medieval church taught and from what the Remonstrants taught in reaction to the Reformation doctrine of justification sola gratia, sola fide.

A Bit Cooky

Doug Wilson has a new post on his blog, here. It is a response to David Gadbois' latest article which can be found here.

In Gadbois' post he argues that the Federal Vision "seems to have to marginalize adult baptisms, because it doesn’t fit nicely into what they view as the 'norm' for baptismal efficacy. Various manifestations of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration (and, yes, I realize there is no uniform definition of this doctrine) seem to depend on making infant baptisms paradigmatic." Gradbois says this is because when a adult is baptized it is done after a profession of faith. Thus, the adult being baptized is already justified before baptism (assuming his faith is God given, saving faith). This shows, as Gradbois argues, that the adult baptism does not effect his justification.

This argument seems straightforward and difficult for the Federal Vision position. Pastor Wilson sets out to defend the Federal Vision from this charge by quoting the Westminster Standards:

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 belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time (28.6).

Wilson argues that baptism can work even before it is applied. That is, the act of saving faith done on the part of the adult is done because they will in the future be baptized. God is working in the adult in light of what will happen in the future.

All who hold to the Westminster will gladly agree that an infant's baptism can work after the baptism. This is clear in the section of the Confession quoted. But working backwards? This response of Wilson's is clever, I must admit that, but it seems to be lacking exegetical warrant. I am unaware of any passage that speaks of baptism working retroactively. More exegetical work needs to be done before this should be seen as a valid response. Further, is there any evidence that the Westminster Divines saw baptism working retroactively? If not, why are we to read this section of the Confession that way?

This response seems to be grasping for straws. It would appear that this is just another problem with the FV position. I am not sure how many "wholes" need to be shown in this view before it is abandoned, but one more cannot hurt.

Once for All

Justification takes place once for all. It is not repeated, neither is it a process; it is complete and for all time. There is no more or less in justification; man is either fully justified, or he is not justified at all.

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pg. 513.

Westminster on Baptism

Westminster Confession of Faith 28:6

The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, not withstanding, 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 confession makes a point to state that the grace in baptism is only given to those "that grace belongs unto." This seems to fly in the face of the so-called 'Federal Vision.'

As best I can discern, this view says that the grace of baptism is given to all that are baptized. That is, that baptsim is the means God uses for justifying people. For example, Rich Lusk makes this comment in his article Faith, Baptism, & Justification,

The Westminster Standards point in this same direction. On the one hand the Confession says no one is actually justified until Christ is applied to them (11.4). But the Shorter Catechism specifically says one function of baptism is to apply Christ to the believer (92). Putting these two statements together yields this conclusion: Baptism is the instrument through which Christ is applied to us unto justification.

Thus, we can say that faith is the instrument of justification on our end, while baptism is the instrument on God’s side.

However, one must keep in mind that justification can be lost, not for the decretaly elect, but the non-elect, in this sense, can have justification and lose it. This is what leads to saying that the grace in baptism is for all baptized.

This group would do better to use all the qualification on baptism that the confession gives.

Doug Wilson Got it Right!

I was on safari in the blogosphere and came across this old post by Doug Wilson.

With regard to the atonement and Amyraldianism, I believe that Jesus Christ, by His death on the cross, absolutely secured the salvation of an innumerable host, each member of that host being known by name to God before the foundation of the world. I believe that the number of those so known and numbered by God can neither be increased or diminished by anything conceived by the mortal mind of man. With regard to the atonement and Arminianism, I believe that when Christ died to pay the penalty for someone, the penalty for that someone is actually paid. As a result, there is no one in hell for whom that redemptive penalty was paid.

It is good to see that Doug Wilson still is holding to, what seems to be, a traditional understanding of particular redemption.