Right now there are a few major points being asserted by the anti-“federal vision” movement in the PCA. One of the major ones is this:
The terms of systematic theology are the real meaning of the words as they are used in Scripture and anyone who uses terms differently is being dangerous.
One of the fascinating aspects of this plank is that it would require a majority of the PCA ministers and a majority of the presbyteries to walk it. But I will elucidate that point some other time. Right now I simply want to simply take as an example the terms call and election.
Then the king said to the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” For many are called, but few are elect (Matthew 22.13-14).
Did I not elect you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil (John 6.70).
I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have elected. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, “He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me” (John 13.18).
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (Romans 8.30).
So there’s some of the data. This is the way God speaks. Is anyone going to dare claim that it is wrong to speak like God does? Obviously, we have chosen certain terms to stand for certain ideas. We get these ideas from Scripture. But God, just as obviously, communicated these ideas without restricting himself to this terminology. Nor is there any obligation for Presbyterians to refuse to use the word elect the way Jesus does as recorded in John 6.70.
Far from preserving the doctrine of eternal election, these sorts of baseless taboos just make us look like we are both stupid and afraid of the Bible. Pastorally, it is the easiest thing in the world to show people how ordinary language works in Scripture and how the doctrines of what is commonly called “calvinism” are clearly revealed by these various passages using words in different ways. Look at those four passages above again. Do they not make a powerful case for the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and divine monergism in salvation? Does the fact that they use the terms call and elect in different and even contrary ways distract one iota from the truth they present?
But what if I claimed that some passages needed to be discounted for people to arrive at proper belief? Would anyone who respected Scripture as God’s word give me the time of day? My pastoral ministry would be restricted only tho those who held to a prior loyalty to a human tradition irrespective of what the Bible actually says. I would be making Presbyterianism look suspicious.
But people in our churches need to know that we read and submit to the whole Bible. They need to know that we don’t restrict our reading to our favorite passages and claim they are “more inspired” than the favorite prooftexts of the Arminians. If we aren’t willing to show a love for all the words the Spirit has given to us, every jot and tittle, then we can’t expect those whom the Spirit is calling to find anything of value in us.
Christ’s sheep hear his voice. They don’t accuse him of speaking improperly.
In a similar vein, I once was discussing ‘regeneration’ with a pastor friend. He had accused certain people of deception for using the word Biblically. I expressed my dismay only to be further astonished when he said, “Yes, but that was before the Westminster Confession was written. Had I been on my toes & willing to go there, I should have said, “Pastor, you’ve just made the WCF our ‘Superior Standards.'”
Argh. “Proorizo” and all that … Such “scholars” are guides shutting the door of knowledge to others and plucking out their own eyes.
And as for the Westminster-olatry, let the dead bury their own dead.
I prefer the biblical language, but I’ve heard some complain that shying away from systematic language would cause confusion for people who are aliens to reformed theology, those perhaps who are hearing it for the first time. If a Baptist-arminian walked in off the street and heard a FV’ist sermon filled with biblical language instead of systematic language, it might sound similar to his own tradition. Some argue that only those who have been thoroughly trained in the reformed tradition would be able to know that the pastor is a solid “five-point Calvinist.” The language is too confusing (they say), and our reformed theology is too obscured and cloudy.
How should we respond to this?
Is this a valid criticism?
I don’t know if it is “valid” because I’m not sure what that would mean in this context. I don’t think it is a criticism that truly reflects on the “Federal Vision.” On the other hand, I think it is a reasonable question and that it is within the bounds of Christian discourse (i.e. involves no accusations of heresy). So I’m tempted to say it is valid in contrast to a great many other things being said on the web and in conference show trials.
Part of the problem here is that the worry is about a position but also about the abuses someone might do in a position. It is hard to know which issue to address.
For myself, I’ve had a child more than once try to get out of trouble because their sin was decreed by God. I don’t think there is any question that even my youngest listeners are getting the message of God’s sovereignty, etc. And I certainly know this in the case of my present Church situation and the regular preaching we sit under. Finally, I simply don’t see anything remotely ambiguous in the preaching of others. Is anyone confused about Doug Wilson’s beliefs in this regard?
One thing that might help would be to listen to Rich Lusk’s sermons for awhile and decide if he is confusion or not. They are being podcast!
Let me see if I get Matt’s comment straight by paraphrasing… “if we use biblical FV language a baptist might walk in off the street and and not run out screaming because we didn’t push the 5 points of Calvinism even when it’s not in the text?”
I want to preach the word of God and let the chips fall where they may.
I suppose I want to be “little c” catholic in that regard.