Doug Wilson’s post is wise. I’m posting the second half:
The need of the hour is this. Every person who has been following this Federal Vision thing at all needs to make a point of following this particular segment of it, and really should read through these answers that Steve has given. Because of how everything has fallen out, it looks as though Steve gets to be the cause celebre of this whole thing, at least within the PCA. But this is what that means. When you look at the claims in the memorial against Steve from the Central Carolina Presbytery, and you look at Steve’s orthodox answers, there are only a few possible explanations for what could happen here. The first (and greatly to be desired) possibility is that honest and conscientious TRs will see that whatever differences they might have with Steve, they do not rise to the level of requiring any kind of censure or discipline. Steve is well within confessional bounds. I pray that this will happen with many honest TRs who love Christ and the Westminster Standards, and who do so in that order.
But what if strident opposition continues despite these answers? This creates several possibilities also. One of them, sadly, is that it might be driven by a high level of theological ignorance. Certain men are being asked to follow arguments that they are simply not equipped to follow. Another possibility is simply old-fashioned hostility and malice. The facts don’t matter to them, and they will do whatever they do to Steve simply because they think they can. And yet another possibility is that they have been persuaded somehow that because Steve’s answers are orthodox, they must be dishonest. And so they want to convict him for the heresy they know he must harbor somewhere deep in his heart.
So as I see it, the ideal situation would be for ten thousand Reformed believers to read through Steve’s answers now, and then turn and patiently wait for the standing judicial committee to make their determination. As I see it, given this clear confession of faith, any negative assessment of Steve is only possible if the judges are 1. clearly in over their heads 2. simply vindictive or 3. prepared to admit spectral evidence. If a conviction of heterodoxy happens through any combination of these three factors, I think it needs to happen in the bright light of day, with all sorts of checked out people looking at them as they do whatever they do. This must not be a back-room deal. It is an examination of a public minister’s public teaching. That teaching is out on the table. We can all read it. And we can witness for ourselves whether or not the standing judicial committee is reading the same things we are.
–It is beyond me how the reprobate can enjoy “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.”–
In my understanding, these are the types of tensions that Wilkins is trying to address. Paul, at least according to Wilkins, addresses the statement about spiritual blessings to the entire Ephesian church. Yet we can certainly assume that not every member of the Ephesian church was elect in the eternal sense. It’s beyond me how Paul can address the WHOLE church this way, yet he does. Perhaps there are other perspectives through which one can view God’s covenant people in history. All Wilkins is doing is calling us to consider another perspective, a perspective that seems different (but not contradictory) to the perspective found in the majority of the Westminster Standards.
Is my understanding of Wilkins correct? If so, what’s the big deal?
The kind of universal language that Paul uses is commonly used in the church today — specifically, by pastors who would probably bristle at the “new perspective.” It is not uncommon for a reformed pastor to refer to those present at the worship service (“we”) as though all were regenerate. IN other words, as Mark states above regarding Paul, many pastors “address the WHOLE church this way.”
I doubt that this common usage is either “the judgment of charity” or “the covenant perspective.” I think it is simply common usage without much thought behind it. It could be a number of things: a) ignorance regarding the implications of the language; b) presumption that all are regenerate; c) carelessness with regard to linguistic precision; or d) unwillingness to broach the subject of whether all in attendance are, in fact, regenerate.
I am new to this topic and am trying to get a handle on the different issues involved. I would like to see more discussion about Paul’s linguistic choice, i.e., “address[ing] the WHOLE church this way,” and his reason for so-choosing.
I would appreciate it if you would recommend some introductory reading on the “new perspective,” if that’s not too broad a term. I would particularly like to read some N. T. Wright source material, since he seems to be in Piper’s cross-hairs right now.
Thanks for the discussion.
Note to readers, there were a bunch of accidental comments on this post that are now gone. It is a clean slate. Ken C. quoted from part of a comment that is not here anymore but I thought his comment could stand alone and was worth chewing on.
And, to Ken C. one way might be to address “universe of discourse.” Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds. As botany that simply isn’t true. As regards a contemporary garden in Judea, it is. Was Paul addressing such things as “the gift of perseverance” or the gift of true regeneration which mandates perseverance when he wrot “every spiritual blessing.”
However, while I’m still open to that as the possible solution, it doesn’t seem especially compelling in Eph. 1. I suspect a more “perspectival” approach is required.
Whatever the case, you right to say that the fact is that Paul does “address the WHOLE church this way.” The question is how. Whether it be called “the judgment of charity” or “the covenant perspective, ” or something else, that is the issue that needs to be addressed.
MArk,
Thanks for wiping the slate clean. No problem with the quoted comment.
Could it not be simply, like when I say in a sermon ‘Beloved in Christ,’ though there might be unbelievers present, I trust that God knows who are beloved, and who are not?
Or, could it be that Paul is addressing elect within the congregation?
or, could it be we are hanging too much theological freight on an incidental statement?
These are the thoughts I would have about the verse. I don’t think we can construct a whole theology of election/reprobation, visible/invisible on an address.
Mark, one of these days I’m going to sit down and write you a letter (that’s a threat) about my own background, my dalliance with Dan Fuller, and why I have such strident objections to the FV constructs! I have been composing it in my head for months, but have yet to put pen to paper.
And, I hope I can do it with a little more charity than i have on occasion displayed.
It seems to me that if arguments such as Wilkins’s were premised merely upon forms of address that they would be very shaky indeed, easily enough explained by broad linguistic considerations or the judgment of charity and the like.
But, as I read Wilkins, forms of address are only one bit of confirmatory evidence for him within a larger perspective on a wide range of biblical data: sacramental language, warning passages, descriptions of the church visible, the nature of covenants in their outward administration, typological considerations, scriptural examples, the character of apostasy, and so on.
To engage with Wilkins’s position, this whole range of data would need to be taken up. Moreover, one would have to do so taking into account how he understands the historic trajectories of Reformed and Presbyterian interpretation and theology which seem to allow for and affirm much of what Wilkins seems to want to say.
Just as a side note, given comments above, I think some insight provided by the “new perspective” (within Pauline studies as represented by guys like Dunn and Wrigt), is a helpful balance to the kind of perspective that Wilkins seems to be providing with its emphasis on the visible administration of the covenant of grace.
That’s to say, Dunn and Wright both do a good job suggesting ways in which some Pharisees and Judaizers were falling into fatal presumption, taking mere possession of (God’s graciously-given) visible covenant markers (food laws, circumcision, Sabbath, etc.) to be sufficient and an end in themselves, apart from a humble trust in God’s promises and purposes in Christ.
Garver wrote: “But, as I read Wilkins, forms of address are only one bit of confirmatory evidence for him within a larger perspective on a wide range of biblical data: sacramental language, warning passages, descriptions of the church visible, the nature of covenants in their outward administration, typological considerations, scriptural examples, the character of apostasy, and so on.”
This is an excellent point.