Posted here:

1. a. We affirm that those whom God has effectually called can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace but shall certainly persevere therein to  the end, and be eternally saved (C 17.1).
1. b. We deny that anyone who truly comes to Christ falls away (C 10.4).
1. c. We deny that there is any temporary participation in the benefits of justification, adoption, and sanctification.

Correct, but see the discussion of tautology, definition, and the way words are used outside of the limits of specialized theological terms (i.e. adoption and sanctification in Romans 9.4; 1 Cor 7.14).

The last parenthetical statement in this document hit me right between the eyes.

One of the discouraging aspects of the “federal vision” brouhaha, is how blatantly and publicly ministers under vows to pursue the peace and purity of the Church will go out of their way to find complicated formulas and then use an “fv” failure to affirm these formulas as an excuse for making blatantly false accusations that these men fail to affirm or teach “the gospel.”

The “Covenant of Works” is a great example. There are people who question if claiming that Jesus was under a “Covenant of Works” (depending on how that is defined) is the best way, or the most Biblical, to describe what He did for sinner.
OK, that may be right or wrong. But claiming that anyone in the Reformed world is teaching that we are not saved exclusively by what Jesus accomplished, which we could not accomplish ourselves, nor even even contribute to, is simply spreading falsehood. Everyone not only says under questioning, but also consistently preaches and teaches that we are saved by the person and work of Christ and not by anything in ourselves. Even our faith in Christ is a gift from God.

The lack of rigor that is now being exemplified in the anti-fv crusade is not only displeasing to God because it misrepresents other believers, but it also is a straightforward method for mass “IQ-reduction” in the Reformed tradition. People with academic credentials are saying by word and example that it is perfectly reasonable to attribute ideas to people that they not only fail to hold, but hate and abominate, on the basis of a postulated series of logical connections that they find highly dubious.

Do conservative Lutherans understand that we are save by what God did in Christ and not by our own actions? Yes. Do they believe in a covenant of works? No. According to our present hysteria, this entire tradition is preaching another Gospel.

This is just silly and it is leading to a church culture of anti-intellectual superstition. A debate about the Covenant of Works is just fine. A claim that the basic Evangelical Gospel is being “re-defined” is simply defamatory and the refuge of people (as far as it can appear to any intelligent person) who know they have no real case.

In the Bible, covenant children are encouraged to trust in God because they belong to him.

In our churches today, covenant children are encouraged to trust in God in order to belong to him.

I suppose little by little I will be reviewing the New Horizon’s issue alleged to be about the Federal Vision. But I don’t have time now. Still I want to quote some excellent material in the lead article by Venema:

In the Protestant view, justification is a judicial declaration by God. It is the pronouncement of the believer’s innocence in God’s court. That is, God declares the justified person righteous. The opposite of justification, then, is condemnation or being declared guilty (Rom. 8:33-34). By contrast, the Roman Catholic view is that justification includes a process of moral transformation equivalent to what, in evangelical terms, is known as the work of sanctification.

To the Reformers, the importance of justification can hardly be exaggerated. To be brought before a human court and judged innocent is a matter of some importance. But to be brought before God and receive his verdict of innocence is a matter of supreme importance. Accordingly, justification is a principal benefit of Christ’s saving work, which reveals God’s grace toward undeserving sinners whom he saves from condemnation and death (Rom. 5:12-21). In this perspective, justification is a thoroughly theological and soteriological theme, which demonstrates God’s righteousness in delivering sinners from their awful plight (Rom. 3:21-26).

In their protest against the Roman Catholic understanding of justification, the Reformers insisted that justification is an entirely free gift of God’s grace. So far as their acceptance with God is concerned, believers rest their confidence, not in anything they might do in obedience to God, but in God’s gracious favor demonstrated in the free provision of redemption through Jesus Christ. Consequently, the Reformers emphasized that the righteousness by which believers are justified is not a personal or inherent righteousness, but an “alien” and “imputed” righteousness (iustitia aliena et imputata). The believer’s justification rests upon the righteousness of someone else, namely, Jesus Christ. By means of his obedient life, suffering, death, and resurrection, Christ met all the obligations of the law and secured the justification of his people (Rom. 4:25).

If justification is free and unmerited, and based upon a righteousness graciously imputed to believers, then people can receive it only by believing, not by doing good works. “Grace alone,” “Christ alone,” and “faith alone” are corollary expressions. If we are saved by grace alone, then our works cannot be a necessary precondition for our being accepted by God. According to the Reformers, this is precisely what “faith alone” asserts. Faith, which accepts Christ and trusts in his saving righteousness, is the only instrument by which to receive the free gift of justification before God (Rom. 3:27; 4:16; 5:1; 9:30-31; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9).

This is excellent. Is there anything to quibble about? Not really. I guess we need to remember that Ephesians is a document that thoroughly covers soteriology without using the term “justification” or even “righteousness” as an imputed legal standing. I only say that because, while I agree with Venema and the Reformers on the importance of justification, I think we need to be careful how we use this principle in judging the writings of others. I would also point out that if one is perfectly assure of one’s standing before God on the ground of the person and work of Christ, that other issues might be more “important” to him in terms of being foremost on his mind. I don’t think there would be anything wrong with this, nor would it count as a falling away from the Reformers.

In fact, I’m embarrassed to be so trivial. It is hard not to be over-scrupulous when one is in the middle of a church war. Please excuse me for doing this.

The other thing to point out is that the logical connection is missing in this sentence: ” If justification is free and unmerited, and based upon a righteousness graciously imputed to believers, then people can receive it only by believing, not by doing good works.” There is a (quite correct) exegetical premise that is hidden here. Something like, “The Bible teaches that not everyone is justified, and the gospel demands a response.” Otherwise, one could just as easily claim that the free and unmerited nature of justification indicates that everyone is justified by God or that one is justified regardless of whether or not one believes the Gospel. After all, when a judge imposes a sentence on an individual, whether condemnation or vindication, we normally don’t say that the person must ‘by faith receive” the verdict.

Of course, I can’t and don’t fault Venema for not including premisses with which his audience agrees. As I said, our current controversy is making me super-scrupulous.

No such thing if we are going to get technical.

I realize we can say in a vague and real way that “faith justifies” and “only faith justifies,” just like James can say “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working” and refer to Elijah and the three-year drought.

Did Elijah stop the rain or did God?

And so it is with faith. “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.” God is the one who performs the act of justification. Our faith is not in it. To talk about “faith in the act of justification” is a fundamental category mistake if one is trying to be precise. Faith is on the other side of the creator/creature divide; and only our Creator can justify sinful creatures.

So talking about the nature of this faith as to how little obedience is involved in it or whatever, is all completely beside the point.  No amount of obedience in faith is enough for it to do what only God can do.  And no amount of passivity is enough either.  Man is impotent to justify himself, win God’s favor, or forgive his own sins. God justifies sinners, freely bestows his favor, and forgives their sins through Jesus Christ.

God does it. Not faith.

“Mr Wilson’s doctrine of justification through “living” or “obedient” faith is the very doctrine that we rejected in the Reformation.”

“Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.”

So it’s not living faith, and it is not dead faith.

What, is it? Faith the Vampire Slayer?

Is Faith a vampire herself now? Did she finally lose a battle and get turned?

Maybe Dr. Clark is a member of the Watcher’s Council and is trying to get out alarming news without blowing his cover.

Sorry, but I’m struggling to find a rational explanation for the weird nonsense being broadcast. There is certainly no explanation from the Reformed standards, Reformed tradition more generally, or the Bible to explain the statements being made. There has to be something else going on.

It is interesting reading this article to find that Gaffin agrees with Wright that those who are truly justified will never ever lose that status. I agree with both of them, but in the case of Wright I think his understanding leads him astray when dealing with the frank warning passages in Romans 11. I don’t know about Gaffin. He may well (and should, in my opinion) have a more robust view of how warnings function. My personal favorite on this sort of thing is Charles Hodge.

Who shall also confirm you unto the end, (that ye may be) blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ (First Corinthians 1.9).

…Shall also confirm you. God had not only enriched them with the gifts of the Spirit, but he would also confirm them. The one was an assurance of the other. Those to whom God gives the renewing influence of the Spirit, he thereby pledges himself to save; for “the first fruits of the Spirit” are, as just remarked, of the nature of a pledge. They are an earnest, as the apostle says, of future inheritance… Shall confirm… ie. shall make steadfast, preserve from falling. The word is used in reference to persons and things. God is said to confirm his promises, when he fulfills them, or so acts as to prevent their falling… He is said to confirm his people when he renders them steadfast in the belief and obedience to the truth… unto the end, may mean the end of life, or the end of this dispensation, ie. to the end of the period which was to precede the advent of Christ; or it may be understood indefinitely as we use the expression “final perseverance.” Unblamable, ie. Not arraigned or accused. He is unblamable against whom no accusation can be brought. In this sense it is said “a bishop must be blameless,” Titus 1, 6. 7. God will confirm his people so that when the day of judgment comes, which is the day of our Lord Jesus, ie. The day of his second advent, they shall stand before him blameless, not chargeable with apostasy or any other sin. The are to be “holy and without blame.” Compare 1 Thess. 5, 23. When we remember on the one hand how great is our guilt, and on the other, how great is our danger from without and from within, we feel that nothing but the righteousness of Christ and the power of God can secure our being preserved and presented blameless in the day of the Lord Jesus (pp. 9-10).

And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? (First Corinthians 8.11)

For whom Christ died. There is great power and pathos in these words. Shall we, for the sake of eating one kind of meat rather than another, endanger the salvation of those for whom the eternal Son of God laid down his life? The infinite distance between Christ and us, and the almost infinite distance between his sufferings and the trifling self-denial required at our hands, give to the apostle’s appeal a force the Christians heart cannot resist. The language of Paul in this verse seems to assume that those may perish for whom Christ died. It belongs, therefore, to the same category as those numerous passages which make the same assumption with regard to the elect. If the latter are consistent with the certainty of the salvation of the elect, then this passage is consistent with the certainty of the salvation of those for whom Christ specifically died. It was absolutely certain that none of Paul’s companions in shipwreck was on that occasion to lose his life, because the salvation of the whole company had been predicted and promised; and yet the apostle said that if the sailors were allowed to take away the boats, those left on board could not be saved. This appeal secured the accomplishment of the promise. So God’s telling the elect that if they apostatize they shall perish, prevents their apostasy. And in like manner, the Bible teaching that those for whom Christ died shall perish if they violate their conscience, prevents their transgressing, or brings them to repentance. God’s purposes embrace the means as well as the end. If the means fail, the end will fail. He secures the end by securing the means. It is just as certain that those for whom Christ died shall be saved, as that the elect shall be saved. Yet in both cases the event is spoken of as conditional. There is not only a possibility, but an absolute certainty of their perishing if they fall away. But this is precisely what God has promised to prevent (pp. 148-149).

…There is, however, a sense in which it is scriptural to say that Christ died for all men. This is very different from saying that he died equally for all men, or that his death had no other reference to those who are saved than it had to those who are lost. To die for one is to die for his benefit. As Christ’s death has benefited the whole world, prolonged the probation of men, secured for them innumerable blessings, provided a righteousness that is sufficient and suitable for all, it may be said that he died for all. And in reference to this obvious truth, the language of the apostle, should any prefer this interpretation, may be understood, “Why should we destroy one for whose benefit Christ lay down his life?”… (p. 149).

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall (First Corinthians 10.12).

…There is perpetual danger of falling. No degree of progress we may have already made, no amount of privileges which we may have enjoyed, can justify the want of caution. Let him that thinketh he standeth, that is, let him who thinks himself secure. This may refer either to security of salvation, or against the power of temptation. The two are very different, and rest generally on different grounds. False security of salvation commonly rests on the ground of our belonging to a privileged body (the church), or to a privileged class (the elect). Both are equally fallacious. Neither the members of the church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness; and they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort. False security as to our power to resist temptation rests on an overweening self-confidence in our own strength. None are so liable to fall as they who, thinking themselves strong, heedlessly run into temptation (p. 181).

I’m not sure I completely understand statements like this from Gaffin:

Christ is the living and abiding embodiment of the righteousness that has been irrevocably imputed to believers. As such, he continues to sustain in their justified state those whom God has already predestined and justified (vss. 29-30). And he does that sustaining work with unwavering faithfulness, just as he has ever since each of those elect was first united to him by faith. Because of his intercession, they cannot and will not ever fall from the state of justification.

OK, here’s the deal. Usually, if I do something “irrevocably” I don’t have to keep sustaining it. Perhaps I’m wrong about this. I got married irrevocably, but I obviously have to work at it. But then again, divorce laws are quite clear that I am not married irrevocably. If one of us files and abandons the other, then the marriage will be “revoked.” What is different about Jesus is not only that he never files, but he prevents our faith from failing (as Gaffin points out) so that we never file either.

But here’s where the rubber meets the road. One way in which (sometimes) believers are prevented from falling into unbelief is by warnings. Faith “trembles at the threatenings” in the Word of God, we are taught in the Westminster Confession (yeah and its in the Bible too, for you nonPresbyterian readers who still don’t understand church authority). If we are all taught we are in an irrevocable status–that Jesus is stuck with us even if we go out leave him with all the children, and sleep with strange men–then the church of God gets deprived of a means by which some are effectually called to salvation.

Gaffin’s version of “irrevocable” is consistent, I think, with the contingencies and the ongoing need for Christ’s intercessory work. But if he had been writing for the edification of the Church, rather than the party which he has joined in (not that there is anything wrong with these men other than defining themselves according to imagined opponants), he could have presented us with a much more engaging discussion regarding common pastoral concerns.

I may be guilty of over-characterizing the hubris of the TR report-makers, but if I am, it’s not by much. They are etching lines in the pavement and they are doing it with their Bibles on the shelf.