Took the time to go through the entirety of David Allen’s section on Romans 8:32-34 from both of his published books and to interact with his claims regarding particular redemption. Then we moved on (after about an hour) to talk about Doug Wilson, Federal Visionism, and related topics. About 95 minutes today.
Does Trinitarian baptism join you to the New Covenant? Does it join you to Christ? Does it make you a brother or sister in Christ with everyone else who has likewise been baptized, even if you hold to a false gospel? Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ by baptism, but not by confession of faith? These are the issues debated by Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho and James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. (2 Hours 48 Minutes)
Since returning from Little Rock I’ve been working at preparing for Edmond, OK this weekend and the debate in LA. Just a few representative Federal Vision quotes in passing. Doug Wilson wrote:
Our duty is simply to accept this. And this means we must maintain that there is a union with Christ that all baptized Christians share, whether those Christians are reprobate or not. In this sense, there is no covenantal distinction between the elect and the reprobate within the covenant. But it also requires us to maintain that there is a decretal distinction between the elect and the reprobate within the covenant. This decretal distinction is then manifested in history by means of covenant members who either keep or break covenant. The covenant is kept by grace through faith, and the covenant is broken through unbelief. When the covenant is kept, it is kept by faith in the only One who kept covenant perfectly, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the only true covenant keeper, and we keep covenant through faith in Him and that faith is a gift, lest any boast. Unbelief that causes the covenant to be broken is unbelief in Jesus Christ, either through rejection of the covenant, or through attempts to keep covenant on our own apart from Him.
Galatians 3:28 and Romans 3:28 are verses which have oft been extorted from their contexts, stripped of their author’s intent, dressed in the style of their captors, and reduced to servitude in contrived systems. If anyone should speak of restoring the verses to their original settings, the taskmasters scurry to their battlements and snipe. That’s understandable, I suppose. After all, it’s hard to find good servants; their lords are loathe to let them go.
I had the misfortune of having to once again look over the “response” Steve Schlissel wrote to Richard Phillips in The Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros & Cons (2004). This is the kind of stuff I hope we don’t hear, at least in this form, November 5th:
Phillips has difficulty identifying Christians. The Reformed faith does not. Christians are heirs of the promise, and the church is made up of those who have had the promise signed and sealed to them in baptism.
I thought Christians were followers of Christ, those whose sins have been forgiven, who have been justified, and indeed sealed in their faith—by the Holy Spirit of God. Evidently, to be “truly Reformed,” one must believe the church is formed not by the sovereign action of God through His Spirit, but through trinitarian baptism, even when practiced by those who despise the gospel of grace. Keep your eye on the ball.
If I appear to be read to leave Ft. Lauderdale believing that the children of believers are anything other than fully children of the Living God, please shoot me.
Quick note: that kind of line may go over well in places where the Second Amendment has been functionally repealed (like New York, Massachusetts, or California); but I would strongly suggest not using that kind of terminology in Texas, for one might not make it out of the pulpit as a result.
How many exclamation points am I allowed to append to these astonishing, stunning statements? Covenant children are only sort of, but not really in the covenant? Their entry awaits their free decision?! How this view differs from that of Baptists, I fail to see. What I do see is that it is not the view of Calvin, Augustine, Paul or Jesus Christ.
I am reminded that Schlissel told me a couple of years ago on an e-mail list that I am precluded, by definition, from understanding the covenant, since I’m a Baptist. While the Federal Vision folks say Reformed Baptists are not precluded from the “camp” so to speak, it is pretty hard to read this kind of stuff and not get the very clear feeling that you are indeed persona non grata. This is the kind of rhetoric you hear from the “there is no such thing as a ‘Reformed’ Baptist” crowd. But it gets better, or worse, depending on your perspective.
Grace disappears on the altar of Phillips’ thoroughly baptistic system: “Baptized children must be evangelized and must come to a personal faith in order to receive the salvation offered by God’s covenant.” This statement is repulsive to God’s testimony that the children of His people truly and fully belong to Him. They need not wait for anything. That is called grace. All baptized Christians are addressed in the same way: they have been translated from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of His beloved Son. Now they must walk in the light as He is in the light, and have fellowship with one another. Grace has no greater testimony than infant baptism, which is an everlasting sign and seal that those who properly receive it really belong to God, apart from anything they’ve done, or could do.
Of course, Presbyterian ministers, such as Richard Phillips, rightly take Schlissel’s language as purposefully insulting, and we Reformed Baptists, being the lovable bunch we are, don’t mind the insult headed our direction, either. We are used to it! But isn’t it odd to see Schlissel inadvertently fulfilling Phillips’ own words, repudiating faith and replacing it with baptism? How can anyone not read this is as blatant, unvarnished sacerdotalism that stands in opposition to the gospel (which, of course, is notable by its absence in these words). We are told all baptized Christians are said to have been translated from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of His beloved Son. If Schlissel’s position is consistent (eek! Platonism! Enlightenment philosophy!), then the passage referred to has nothing to do with the gospel, faith, regeneration, etc., and is just as applicable to a gospel-denying reprobate who trusts in his own self-righteousness (but was validly baptized) as it does the greatest saint of God; yet, the passage itself reads, “For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” If baptism does this, doesn’t it follow that ex opere operato baptism results in redemption, the forgiveness of sins? Now, we see some “wiggle room” inserted by the phrase “properly receive it.” How does an infant improperly receive infant baptism? Could someone explain that? But Schlissel wasn’t done:
“Baptized children . . . must . . . be evangelized and must come to a personal faith in order to receive the salvation offered by God’s covenant.” Only insofar as all God’s people are “evangelized,” only insofar as all God’s people continually renew their faith. The view that a covenant child becomes God’s only after a crisis is not the Reformed faith. Should this view ever be understood as the Reformed faith, I hereby reject that “faith” with all my heart. Better to lose the adjective than the treasure of grace.
Mr. Phillips insists that only those “who [come] to God in trusting faith and thus [receive] an imputed righteousness as a free gift” can be saved. Apparently, to have been the beneficiary of such grace without so much as your “free” reception of it is not good enough for Mr. Phillips’ scheme. He expressly rules children out “until the conditions of the covenant are fulfilled”. Therefore, in that monstrous version of the church which Mr. Phillips and his baptistic co-religionists invent, there are no infants.
If you are sitting there staring at the screen going, “That really sounds like Schlissel finds the idea of calling your children to faith and repentance repulsive,” you are completely correct, but have obviously not listened to the 2002 AAPC talks, either! Keep in mind that clearly, for Schlissel, the term “Reformed” cannot, and should not, and never should have, been used of Southern Presbyterianism. Whatever it is, it isn’t “Reformed.” The term the speakers used was “wet Reformed Baptists,” and I didn’t get the feeling those words were spoken with a great deal of collegiality. Now, I’ll let my Southern Presbyterian brothers fight it out with these folks regarding their reading of Calvin. I see little danger that Steve Schlissel will be changing his views on the matter anytime soon. But one thing is for sure. The “catholicity” of Schlissel’s views dies a thousand deaths with that last line. I really don’t get the idea that “monstrous version” means “another perfectly acceptable view,” nor do I get the feeling that there is a lot of warmth to be found in the phrase “his baptistic co-religionists.” Of course, you have to get rid of the necessary visible/invisible distinction with reference to the church to create this straw-man attack anyway, but the fact remains that if you happen to be so backwards as to think that faith and repentance are part and parcel of what it means to pass from death to life, well, you have just missed the real meaning of trinitarian baptism.
In case there is something gnawing at your gut as you read those quotations, let me remind you what it is. It’s a little thing. Just a small word, one that often gets lots in all the rhetoric and citations of Calvin and accusations of being a Baptist (for some, all mental activity stops as soon as that charge is leveled, since of all things, that’s the one we know we can never accept!). See, what you won’t find defining the church, or the covenant, or the word “Christian” in all this, is the word gospel. See, you knew it all along. You knew something was missing, and now you know what it was. And with that, we press forward.
Obviously, Doug Wilson has become tired of being connected with the New Perspective on Paul (aka, NPism), so, a special edition of Credenda Agenda has come out, replete with a fairly lengthy article on the subject. I have had a couple of folks write and complain that I have noted the confluence of Auburnism (aka the loose movement associated with the past few meetings of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church conference in January, which we just learned recently will feature N.T. Wright, the chief proponent of NPism amongst conservatives, in 2005) with NPism. Obviously, for those who have listened with any amount of care to my comments, I have pointed out the difference in background of both movements, Auburnism flowing from a staunchly conservative viewpoint, NPism flowing from a liberal background. I have likewise noted the differences in emphases as well. However, anyone who has read Wright cannot help but pause and take notice when Steve Schlissel stands before the gathered congregants at the AAPC conference and asserts that justification is nothing more than the truth that Jews and Gentiles are part of one covenant, and that by faith. If Wilson disagrees, he has yet to be plain about it. When I see in print, “Steve Schlissel is wrong in what he said,” the issue will be concluded. But, having read this special edition, I found no such rebuke of Schlissel’s assertion.
In any case, it is obviously important for Wilson to comment upon the controversy, and this he has done, first in a small appendix to Reformed is Not Enough, and now in this special edition of Credenda Agenda. For some reason, rather than using Wright as his standard, he chooses a small booklet distributed by John Armstrong, written by Michael Thompson from Cambridge. Now, I am a bit hampered by the fact that I’m stuck with Sanders, or Wright, and not this little booklet, and that may well explain my basic disappointment with Wilson’s response, for it seemed to me that the most important elements of NPism’s assertions seemed to be missing from this little booklet by Michael Thompson. Or at least I have to assume so, since the heart of the matter was not addressed, at least not clearly, by Wilson, based upon Thompson’s booklet.
That is not to say there are not some good things in the article. There are. For example, one of my chief concerns with NPism is its rotten root: it comes from that all-too-popular spectrum of scholarship that long ago gave in to the lordship of the human mind. Its originators do not hold to that bulwark of truth that long guided Christian belief: the absolute authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures. I have often voiced my amazement that those who profess conservative, high views of Scripture can embrace systems that flow clearly from the polluted waters of less-than-truly-inspired Scriptures. At one point Wilson does take aim at such “scholarship,” though, and with his trade-mark style of sarcasm:
While I am at this point, I would beg the reader to allow a brief excursus for just a moment. I have just unwittingly revealed that I naively hold to the Pauline authorship of the pastorals. This I gladly affirm, and will throw in the book of Hebrews to boot. Call, and raise you ten. And on top of that, I will assert that serious theology cannot expect to get anywhere until we knock off the urbane silliness that characterizes so much theological discussion today. The Scriptures say the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; some have taken this to mean that unbelief and autonomous rationality must be the beginning of knowledge. In light of this, the ache that some conservative scholars have to be taken seriously in the unbelieving academy is a pitiful thing indeed, and so I would like to take this opportunity to give the whole thing the universal raspberry. What Princeton, Harvard, Duke and all the theological schools in Germany really need to hear is the horse laugh of all Christendom. I mentioned earlier that proud flesh bonds to many strange things indeed, and I forgot to mention scholarship and footnotes. To steal a thought from Kirkegaard, many scholars line their britches with journal articles festooned with footnotes in order to keep the Scriptures from spanking their academically-respectable pink little bottoms.
I just think I am afraid to type “pink little bottoms,” and I generally am not extended the freedom to blow raspberries in public. Maybe that is why I don’t say things that way. In any case, that was my favorite part of the article. Apart from that, I was left without a lot to cheer about, mainly because 1) the exegetical issues were left almost completely untouched, and 2) the NPism Wilson responds to doesn’t look a whole lot like the NPism I’ve read from Wright. The key issue of the nature of justification, along with the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and the reading of imputational texts in light of the assumed background of Second Temple Judaism, just didn’t get much of a response from Wilson in this article. I guess we can blame Thompson, if we need to, but the end result is the same: little of the important issues of NPism have been given a meaningful conservative response in this article. How about some counter-exegesis of the key texts regarding the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, rather than the ever-present, on-almost-every-page shots at the mainly unnamed critics of Wilson, “the Pharisees of ‘true’ heart conversion” as he calls them at one point? Yes, the story of the Pharisee and the publican is relevant, but, don’t you have to establish the over-all need of viewing Scripture as an inspired whole before aiming that howitzer toward NPism, which does not share that foundational assumption? NPism, at its heart, atomizes the text of Scripture, begins with a fundamental denial of the relevance of the gospel accounts (and especially their testimony to Second Temple Judaism). Such has to be addressed, and it really isn’t in this article. There are good observations of Paul’s own witness concerning Judaism, all very well articulated, and very important. But what of the nature of justification itself? At this point the closest approach to NPism is seen in Wilson’s Auburnistic hyper-covenantalism, and it is just here that many have seen the “connection.” And though Wilson does speak of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, he does not seem to see it as one of the key issues relevant to NPism (it is). NT Wright’s constant denial of this divine truth passes without a whisper, while numerous positive things are said about him instead. Instead we have the rather benign conclusion, “By no means can I give unqualified support to the New Perspective, even to the conservative wing of it represented by men like Wright. But neither can I work myself into a lather over it.” But then again, I guess Wright’s emphasis upon eschatological justification fits well with the same emphasis in Auburnism. I guess it means I’m one of those “true conversion” Pharisees that I get just a tad worked up over such statements as these (page numbers refer to What Saint Paul Really Said):
“Most Protestant exegetes had read Paul and Judaism as if Judaism was a form of the old heresy Pelagianism, according to which humans must pull themselves up by their moral bootstraps and thereby earn justification, righteousness, and salvation.” (19). (It is breathtaking how often Wright completely misses the most basic elements of historic Reformed or Protestant theology and exegesis).
“Many New Testament scholars use detailed exegesis as a way of escaping from heavy-handed and stultifying conservatism; any attempt to articulate an overarching Pauline theology looks to them like an attempt to reconstruct the sort of system from which they themselves are glad to be free.” (21)
Wright speaks often of the Jewish law court as the context of justification, and to a point, that is correct. But amazingly, he completely misses the fact that the law court presented by Paul does not have the bare “judge/parties in dispute” set up he repeatedly presses in his presentation. He misses the advocatethat is plainly presented by Paul in Romans 8. But by ignoring that glorious addition to the law-court scene, Wright can come up with this “new perspective” on Philippians 3:9:
… and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,
The key phrase here, importantly, is not dikaiosune theou, ‘God’s righteousness,’ but dikaiosune ek theou, a righteousness from God. All to often scholars have referred to this passage as though it could be the yardstick for uses of dikaiosune theou; but this is impossible. Thinking back to the Hebrew law court, what we have here is the ‘righteousness’, the status, which the vindicated party possesses as a result of the court’s decision. This is ‘a righteous status from God’; and this is not, as we saw, God’s own righteousness. (104)
Likewise, it would be nice to hear someone else pointing out the holes in the following:
2 Corinthians 5:20-21
2 Corinthians 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the dikaiosune theou.
I have left the last, critical phrase untranslated. This time it is certainly ‘the righteousness of God’; and generations of readers have taken it to be clear evidence for a sense in the lower left half of the diagram, most likely B1a. I have pointed out in detail elsewhere [n.b.: this discussion is found in Pauline Theology, ed. David M. Hay, Fortress Press, 1993], however, that Paul is not talking about justification, but about his own apostolic ministry; that he has already described this in chapter 3 as the ministry of the new covenant; that the point at issue is the fact that apostles are ambassadors of Christ, with God making his appeal through them; and that therefore the apostolic ministry, including its suffering, fear and apparent failure, is itself an incarnation of the covenant faithfulness of God. What Paul is saying is that he and his fellow apostles, in their suffering and fear, their faithful witness against all the odds, are not just talking about God’s faithfulness, they are actually embodying it. The death of the Messiah has taken care of their apparent failure; now, in him, they are ‘the righteousness of God’, the living embodiment of the message they proclaim.
This reading of 2 Corinthians 5:21 ties the verse so closely in to the whole surrounding context that it thereby demonstrates its correctness. If, however, you insist on reading 2 Corinthians 5:21 with a meaning in the second half of the diagram – presumably B1a, ‘imputed righteousness’ – you will find, as many commentators have, that it detaches itself from the rest of the chapter and context, as though it were a little floating saying which Paul just threw in there for good measure. The proof of the theory is in the sense it makes when we bring it back to the actual letter. (105)
“Briefly and baldly put, if you start with the popular view of justification, you may actually lose sight of the heart of the Pauline gospel; whereas if you start with the Pauline gospel itself you will get justification in all its glory thrown in as well.” (113
If you respond that the entire epistle to the Romans is a description of how persons become Christians, and that justification is central there, I will answer, anticipating my later argument, that this way of reading Romans has systematically done violence to that text for hundreds of years, and that it is time for the text itself to be heard again. Paul does indeed discuss the subject-matter which the church has referred to as ‘justification,’ but he does not use ‘justification’ language for it….Paul may or may not agree with Augustine, Luther or anyone else about how people come to a personal knowledge of God in Christ; but he does not use the language of ‘justification’ to denote this event or process. (117)
“In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (119) (Those who have listened to the AAPC’s emphasis upon “corporate election” and baptism can see the connection here.)
“First, within the law-court setting, the ‘righteousness’ which someone has when the court has found in their favour is not a moral quality which they bring into court with them; it is the legal status which they carry out of court with them. Second, we saw that this legal status, the ‘righteousness’ of the person who has won the case, is not to be confused with the judge’s ‘righteousness.’ These implications have, ironically, been missed often enough by the very theologians who have tried to insist on the forensic (law court) nature of the doctrine.” (119)
Referring to 1 Corinthians 1:30 Wright opines, “It is the only passage I know where something called ‘the imputed righteousness of Christ,’ a phrase more often found in post-Reformation theology and piety than in the New Testament, finds any basis in the text.” (123)
One is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. One is justified by faith by believing in Jesus. It follows quite clearly that a great many people are justified by faith who don’t know they are justified by faith. The Galatian Christians were in fact justified by faith, though they didn’t realize it and thought they had to be circumcized as well. (159)
Forgive me for thinking that maybe, just maybe, these statements present a form of NPism that somehow managed to get a “pass” in the most current edition of Credenda Agenda.