A friend sent me this:

For, since the fall of Adam had brought disgrace upon all his posterity, God restores those, whom He separates as His own, so that their condition may be better than that of all other nations. At the same time it must be remarked, that this grace of renewal is effaced in many who have afterwards profaned it. Consequently the Church is called God’s work and creation, in two senses, i.e., generally with respect to its outward calling, and specially with respect to spiritual regeneration, as far as regards the elect; for the covenant of grace is common to hypocrites and true believers. On this ground all whom God gathers into His Church, are indiscriminately said to be renewed and regenerated: but the internal renovation belongs to believers only; whom Paul, therefore, calls God’s “workmanship, created unto good works, which God hath prepared, etc.” (Ephesians 2:10.). Calvin, Deut 32:6

I would have gone to Romans 9 rather than Ephesians 2.10, since that was written “indiscriminately” to the Church of Ephesus.  But the theology is excellent (and easily backed by many other writings in Calvin and other notables).

Presbyterian Identity Crisis by Peter Leithart

And when Ahab heard those words, he tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his flesh and fasted and lay in sackcloth and went about dejectedly. And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, “Have you seen how Ahab has appeared to humble himself before me? Because he has an unregenerate heart and remains under my wrath, I have no regard for his so-called ‘humbling himself’ before me, I will bring the disaster in his days just as I originally said.”

This is not what First Kings 21.27-29 really says.

A few years ago I used my highlighter marker on page 350 of my copy of Zacharias Ursinus’ Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. I was intrigued by something written under the subhead, “What is the lawful use of the sacraments.” Therein one finds these words:

…if the signs be received without faith, it is manifest that the sign and the thing signified do not continue united according to divine appointment. Of those who receive the sacraments it is said: “Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law,” &c. (Rom. 2:25)

So here then is the equation:

{sacrament} + {faith} = {circumcision} + {keeping the law}

Now, for this equation to work I think it is beyond doubt that

{sacrament} = {circumcision}

So where does that leave us?

{faith} = {keeping the law}

I used to read Chesterton. What went wrong that I now spend so much time not reading Chesterton?

The story of Dawn Eden’s conversion (about 2/3 through the audio file) reminded me. I just put the Man who was Thursday (which I have never read) on my Amazon wish list.

The sacraments are said to contain “a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.”

Question: How do we encourage people to become “worthy receivers” of baptism?

Answer: By encouraging, exhorting and admonishing them to improve upon it. By teaching about such improvement.

Question: How is baptism to be improved by us?

Answer: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.

In critiquing a man for saying something about a “causal” role of good works in soteriology, and you want to paint him as not Reformed, when you quote his troubling statements, at least admit that he was defending and meditating on a passage from Calvin’s Institutes:

The fact that Scripture shows that the good works of believers are reasons why the Lord benefits them is to be so understood as to allow what we have set forth before to stand unshaken: that the efficient cause of our salvation consists in God the Father’s love; the material cause in God the Son’s obedience; the instrumental cause in the Spirit’s illumination, that is, faith; the final cause, in the glory of God’s great generosity. These do not prevent the Lord from embracing works as inferior causes. But how does this come about? Those whom the Lord has destined by his mercy for the inheritance of eternal life he leads into possession of it, according to his ordinary dispensation, by means of good works (III.14.21).

Come on, be a man. Are you afraid of letting your audience know what Calvin said? This is what I mean regarding substantive interaction over against that which is not. If you want to show us that you should be taken seriously as a critic, show some honesty about what is going on with those you criticize. Making a declaration about how all quotes from the Reformers, Puritans, Westminster documents, and Protestant scholastics are out of context is embarrassing and question begging under the best of circumstances. To do this while criticizing men when they are doing nothing but learning and quoting the Reformers, without letting one’s audience know that is what they are doing, is pretty much dishonest.

Doug keeps asking for a debate. The reason why there cannot be an open debate between a Federal Vision proponent and a an anti-Federal Vision proponent, is that no FV proponent would agree at the outset never to quote the Bible, the Reformers, the Westminster Standards, or the Protestant Scholastics during the debate. It would be like the Witch of the West handing Dorothy a bucket of water. It is obvious from these show trials that controlling the evidence is a necessity for getting the proper conclusions.

Addendum: that is one reason there can be no debate.  They would also be able to read their own works in full context against the selective quotations of their critics.

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.

Regarding the interview, and the way things are “practically” unconfessional, lets ask ourselves if we have any guide for practice in the Bible.

I will take the Corinthian correspondence as an example, though I will happily deal with any other pastoral example you want to ask about in the comments.

So here are some discussion questions.

1. Did Paul write letters to the Corinthian church?
2. Did he tell this congregation that they were sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours?
3. Did he write to the congregation that God would sustain them to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, and assure them of this by saying that God is trustworthy and that they were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord?
4. Did Paul tell the congregation that God chose them so that they should not boast?
5. Did Paul tell the congregation that they are God’s field, building, and temple in whom the Spirit dwells?
6. Did Paul warn this same congregation that the arrogant among them might face some consequences when he came?
7. Did Paul demand that the congregation put out from among themselves one who was living in sin, and tell them they should do this precisely because they were holy?
8. Did Paul tell the Corinthians that they were were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God?
9. Did Paul tell the Corinthians that they had to stop using prostitutes because their bodies were holy and joined to the Spirit and they were members of Christ?
10. Did Paul warn those who were eating at idol feasts that they might destroy the one for whom Christ died?
11. Did Paul present himself as an example of someone running a race with determination in order that he not become disqualified from the prize?
12. Did Paul warn this congregation that idolatry would lead to damnation?  Is destruction in the wilderness a warning of some lesser kind of punishment?
13. Did Paul premise his warning on the claim that they had all been baptized and eaten spiritual food and drink.
14. Did Paul describe the church as one body by calling it “Christ”?
15. Did Paul tell the Corinthians that they had been baptized in one body and so were members of one body by the Spirit?
16. Did Paul tell the congregation that they were each individually members of the body of Christ?

OK, so far I’m only up to chapter 12 and I’m getting tired?  Let me ask one more question from the end of Second Corinthians.  At what point did Paul stop telling the Corinthians they were in Christ and were the body of Christ and had his Spirit and tell them to examine themselves to see if they were in Christ?  What was he about to do in the near future?

Now, if “the Federal Vision” is presenting a false and wrong practice in the churches, may God end the voice and influence of “its” proponants.  But if “the Federal Vision” is defending exactly the pastoral practice we see in Scripture consistently and without exception in both Testaments, then may her false accusers be quieted.