Here is a piece criticizing the Federal Vision as being opposed to the Gospel. Sadly, it has become common rhetoric within the PCA to speak this way about fellow ministers in the face of the findings of these brothers own presbyteries. I mean no disrespect to Shawn in pointing out that I’m gonig to accept the verdict of the brothers and fathers I have been placed with, rather than his blog post.

So, if Shawn cared what I thought of his critique, what might I tell him?

Well, I might point out what he already knows, that his “televangelist playground” quotation has nothing to do with the people he is attacking (and the quotation means that “attacking” is not too strong a description of what he is doing). Here is quotation:

Wanna be healthy? Try a little obedience. Especially some of that green obedience in my direction. Wanna be happy and blessed? You just need to work harder at paying for my Malibu home.

This horrible quotation has nothing to do with God (Shawn provides the quote in response to a question about Deuteronomy 28) nor any pastor whom is encompassed by the term “federal vision.” In fact, the only reason to use the quotation is to communicate to the readership that there are a class of people who don’t deserve normal Christian behavior but are fair game for any entirely fictional and negative portrayal that anyone cares to invent. From what I see in the blogosphere this sort of example from pastors is bearing predictable fruit. The lusts of the flesh are being encouraged in the name of the Gospel.

Shawn mentions “over-objectifying God’s covenant of grace” but gives us no interaction to work with. Have I misunderstood something in my two part blog on the covenantal vision of the Heidelberg and Westminster catechisms? We get nothing but perjorative characterizations. No arguments. No use of Scripture. Nothing but verdicts that are to be taken as the beginning of allowable conversation.

Is this the method of people who are certain they are right?

Then this:

The truth is that the only reason anyone gets to stay “in” is because the Spirit’s work of grace keeps us in. That was the point of the law: to show us our sin–to present undeniable proof that we could never ever hope to achieve blessing through obedience.

We need to see Deut. 28 in the context of the whole of redemptive history. Was the point of blessings for obedience and vica versa to teach us how to stay on God’s good side, justified, and in the club? Or was it to show us that we could never by our obedience stay in the covenant?

As someone who subscribes to the Westminster Standards, I can only say that this looks really truncated–true in part but not the whole of the truth. No one denies “the only reason anyone gets to stay ‘in’ is because the Spirit’s work of grace keeps us in.” And it is true that every command in Scripture (whether Deuteronomy 28, Ephesians 5, or John 3.16 with a implied command to believe) can remind us of our sinful condition which renders self-salvation impossible. Nevertheless, Deuteronomy 28, as I’ve read somewhere, is a part of the administration of the covenant of grace. I also read somewhere of Deuteronomy 28:

It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, shew them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and not under grace.

That last phrase is directly applicable to Shawn’s post and his judging others of being “under the law; and not under grace.”

Shawn quotes Paul from Galatians 5.4-6 and 2.21, as if anyone would disagree with him or Paul. But is that the only way to understand Deuteronomy 28? Would’t Paul’s direct quotation for Deuteronomy 30 have something to do with understanding how that passage can be applied?

The righteousness of faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

That is Romans 10.6-15 in which the Apostle Paul interprets Deuteronomy 30.11f. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Paul’s statements here might be relevant to Deuteronomy 28 since that is part of what Moses is talking about.

More could be said, but I’ll stop here.