Here is the link to the podcast of the ant-FV conference. If someone hears something they want to ask me about, just let me know where it is in which lecture–and relay as much of the issue as you can. Substantive interaction only, please–life is too short to wade through all the claims made without supporting quotations.
I’ve done my time suffering through this sort of material from these same speakers. It was unworthy of a bad science fiction short story then, and I’m not going to torture myself a second time without reason.
Well, since you’re inviting comments, I have one somewhat unrelated to the current topic, but related to a recent post I can’t seem to find.
You commented that God never punishes for future sin. (Here’s where my heresy–I mean “thoughts”–begin) Seems to me that a corallary of this would be that God never forgives future sin. Now, given that, am I safe in saying that Christ’s work does not cover future sin? To fill this out a little more, here’s what I would posit. Christ, in His work, covered all the sin from righteous Abel to Peter–all who had believed in Him, both living and dead–as well all those around at that time. He couldn’t have covered the sins of John Calvin because Calvin had not yet sinned. It was only when John Calvin was baptized that Christ’s work covered His sin. John Calvin was (symbolically and truly) hung on that cross, died, and buried with Him, as Paul puts it. Through baptism we (like Peter or John Calvin) are set into a relationship with Christ in which we can deal with sin in an ongoing way. In other words, baptism clothes (covers) the believer with Christ and allows Christ to continually cleanse us and sanctify us and apply the benefits (if that’s the right word) of Christ’s death and resurrection to our lives.
The OT sacrificial system seems to provide some corroboration for this scheme. In order to obtain the ash for purification, the the heifer was ONCE offered. But its ashes, the benefits of its sacrifice, continued to be applied well after that. Punctiliar sacrifice, continual application. (As an aside, if you told a Jew that when he was applying the ashes to himself he was re-sacrificing the heifer, he would have looked at you like you were crazy.)
Mark,
Guy Waters, in his first lecture, makes a big deal out of the fact that FV proponents have an undifferentiated view of covenant membership. He then goes on to treat “undifferentiated” as though FV advocates make no distinction between the elect and non-elect in terms of receiving the benefits of the covenant.
Here is the irony: While listening to this lecture I clicked on “Blog and Mablog” where Doug Wilson had just written (in response to questions about the relation of children of believers and the covenant of grace):
“3. Are they fully in that covenant? With regard to membership and the attendant obligation to live by faith alone, yes. With regard to enjoyment of all the blessings of the covenant, that depends on whether or not they are elect.”
David
Mark,
One more, that is almost funny: Joey Pipa accuses FV advocates of quoting people (the Reformers) out of context. Believe it or not, this is in the same lecture in which he assures the conference that Guy Waters doesn’t quote FV advocates out of context!
David
Actually, Aaron, that was my point, and it was to defend the Westminster Confession which states that God does continue to forgive the sins of the justified.
While I think you’re right to bring baptism into it (like the Bible) I would deny that all the unbaptized are ultimately unforgiven. For example, I have no doubts that the stillborn children of Christians are also covered.
Still, you’re right that baptism is one’s official reception into all this and is to be looked upon as a pledge of it.