A troubling blog...

I was sobered to find this new blog via our referral page several days ago. The author, a military officer and PCA ruling elder, served on the PCA's Ad Interim Committee which produced the report on Federal Vision thology adopted two weeks ago at General Assembly.

The blog's first post struck me as unwise--akin to a juror's post-trial analysis of the defense--but subsequent posts have truly troubled me. It's one thing to keep Federal Vision proponents off the Ad Interim Report commiittee, it's another thing altogether for the committee to contain men who seem to have approached their work with full-fledged antipathy toward principals in the Federal Vision movement.

As one who largely agrees with the committee's report I find evidence of such bias on the committee both lamentable and almost incredible. Why, Ad Interim Committee members, did you not feel personal antipathy to key leaders of the Federal Vision movement sufficient reason to reject the committee position initially or to recuse yourself from the committee's work subsequently? It's nearly impossible to conclude that this bias wasn't evident during the committee's work, and while no committee member should be expected to approach the work of the committee a blank slate, integrity would seem to demand an attempt at impartiality by committee members--or the conscious inclusion of differing opinions. I

t's unfortunate that the positive contribution of the committee should be clouded in this manner, and it makes me wonder whether other members of the committee were aware of such attitudes during the committee's work....

Comments

[A. T. Phillips]

Only lukewarm, decadence friendly U.N. types allowed?

[David Gray]

>Only lukewarm, decadence friendly U.N. types allowed?

No, but limiting it to men who conduct themselves honourably might be a start.

[A. T. Phillips]

That's that holier-than-thou moralism Federal Vision cultivates in its works-righteousness scheme...

[Fred Greco]

David,

To be honest (and we've had this conversation before), I would find it troubling if a man on the Committee had any respect for Wilson's work on slavery. It is the worst sort of "scholarship" (it would cause a high school student to be flunked/expelled) and a pitiful attempt to obnoxiously gain the limelight. It is Wilson at his absolute worst.

[Chris Hutchinson]

Your readers should be aware of reformedmusings' rebuttal of your claim here: http://reformedmusings.wordpress.com/2007/06/23/the-bias-smoke-screen/

What I find interesting is how the NPP crowd talks about how a corporate view of justification would have combated racism in Reformed history.

Interesting bedfellows.

[David Gray]

>It is the worst sort of "scholarship" (it would cause a high school student to be flunked/expelled)

Not with a reasonably educated teacher.

[Fred Greco]

Any "reasonably educated teacher" that permitted huge amounts of plagarism and accepted the excuse that "well, I just wasn't very careful" should be digging ditches instead of teaching.

But I expect no less from you Mr. Gray. It seems your sole purpose on the internet is to defend the FV and its advocates.

[A. T. Phillips]

For those who don't know the history of Wilson's blog he has systematically banned any contrarian voice. He only allows comments from the most obsequious yes-men. David Gadbois, it seems, is the lone surviving non-FV voice allowed over there, and most likely he survives to give Wilson evidence that he doesn't ban non-FV voices. Hard to argue with. He's a very honest man.

[A. T. Phillips]

Wilson's ruse on the slavery issue was designed to get him points for being more honest and biblical than his adversaries, without him having to give up any of his heterodox doctrinal novelties. He sensed the same opportunity on the Traditional Text issue. It backfired on the slavery issue due to the common FVists inability to not misread Scripture. All one has to do is ask Mr. Wilson his thoughts on the white slave market and the possibility of one of his daughters or granddaughters becoming a prostitute in, say, an Arab land (oh, wait-a-minute, let's make it a Christian land). How good would that be for his daughter? Backed up by biblical documentation. Man stealing, daughter stealing, forced slavery, this is what the Bible condones, right?

Or is the Bible saying whatever lot you find yourself with in the world be content and thank God and know that your real master, or King, is Jesus.

[Bret McAtee]

Doug Wilson never ever condoned man stealing. Never!

This is defamation of character in its most pristine form.

If you read more then Yankee Reconstructionist propaganda you would realize that the slavery issue was never as easy or simple as hypocritical revisionist Yankee historians have always made it out to be.

Bret L. McAtee

[A. T. Phillips]

The South just bought them at auction after somebody else man-stealed them. Anyway, this noble school of slavery, what has it produced?

[Pastor Trey Austin]

First of all, i'm glad to see that the Baylys have seen something of the bias that has been evident to alot of people (not just FV advocates, but those of us who think that Christian love and fellowship shouldn't be hindered by the small differences that are being blown out of proportion).

Second, to mention *SLAVERY* in a discussion of the FV is to commit the fallacy of "poisoning the well." Since one's view of slavery in general (much less his view of slavery in the antebellum US) has absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the issues involved in the FV (except that two of the men whose stance on the FV is unpopular also have a particularly unpopular view of slavery), the mentioning of it by anyone (even a man whose character has been vouched for several times in recent weeks by the Baylys) can only be an attempt to color the view one has of Wilson apart from the FV matter that will, then, affect the view one has of the FV, which Wilson advocates. The fact is, one can disagree with Wilson's view on slavery and agree with him on issues about the FV, and visa versa. The things are not systematically connected at all.

Third, those who *DO* advocate a view of slavery in which they believe it can be practiced in a way that is biblical and non-sinful do so precisely by appealing to God's Law and the provisions for governing slavery, and, of course, those provisions always make man-stealing of any kind illegal and punishable to the highest degree. The attempt to make the view worse by claiming that they believe man-stealing is a good thing (which they do not) are not only dishonest, but they are also men who can't form decent arguments without resorting to illogical fallacies.

Finally, the post at reformedmusings strike me not only as biased (they are that), but also as tending toward Hyper-Calvinism. To paraphrase the overall argument made, if you are not elect, God's promises are no good for you. I don't see how this man can affirm the well-meant offer in any real sense if he is not even willing to affirm God's well-meant promises to all Covenant members.

Basically the argument assumes that a name has to be listed in order for the promise of God to be good. However, God has promised not only the elect eternal life, but he has promised *ALL MEN* eternal life, *IF* they will trust in Christ the Savior of all men. God does give, in his sovereign grace, the grace of regeneration (and, flowing from it, faith and repentance) to all of his elect, and to them alone (in the full sense); however, it does not follow from that fact that the promises of God are for them only. The promise is for all men, and it is to be received by faith. If it is not received by faith, then it will not come to fruition.

If we were to follow the man's analogy out, the reason he would be unqualified for the inheritance would *NOT* be because he got mail that was intended for someone else (this is the Primitive Baptist and other Hyper-Calvinist argument), but because he was never truly member of the family of the "uncle" that died. Had he been adopted or born into the family, it would have been his. And even if he were born or adopted into the family, if he were to break faith and be disinherited, no matter what the letter promised, his break with his family would have disqualified him.

Truth is, the traditional Calvinistic distinction between God's decretive will and God's preceptive will would have been able to distill out the equivocation illustrated in the post you linked. God can desire something preceptively that is broken and never comes to pass, because he did not ordain it in his decretive will. This goes for God's desire for all men to repent and be saved (2 Pet. 3:9, & al.), for his desire for all men (especially his Covenant members) to obey his commandments (Exod. 20:1, ff.; Deut. 5:1, ff., & al.), and God's desire (expressed in special promises) that all of the Church will be saved and sanctified (references too numerous to recount). That not all men respond, and that not all men obey, and that not all Covenant members are saved and sanctified is explained by the decretive will, but we should never allow the decretive will to so dominate in our thinking that the precept and promises of God are limited to only that which is true for (or to those who are elected in) God's decretive will. That is to fall into Hyper-Calvinism.

This isn't rocket science. This is just basic Christian theology. If anyone denies the sincere well-meant offer of the Gospel, he's a Hyper-Calvinist. If anyone denies the love of God for all men (especially the love of God for all members of his Church and Covenant), he is a Hyper-Calvinist. It is one thing to believe and teach (as all real Calvinists do, from FVists to Reformed Baptists) that only the elect *WILL* be saved; it is quite another thing to say that the promises of grace and salvation in Christ are only ever *FOR* the elect in any sense. To say that causes one to stop being an Evangelical Calvinist ("Evangelical" in the traditional sense of the word), and causes him to start being a Hyper-Calvinist. Of course, this isn't surprising, given the influence of the internet (cf., http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005/06/quick-and-dirty-calvinism.html), with the medium driving the exposition many times, but it is lamentable nonetheless.

I have often wondered whether the issues involved in the debate over High Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism, as opposed to "moderate" and "low" Calvinism, are at work in the antipathy toward the FV. I wonder how many anti-FVers would affirm the free and well-meant offer, God's desire that all men be saved, and the universal sufficiency of Christ's atonement. My sense is that you'd probably find that a tendency away from those things will also be (not necessarily always, but generally) accompanied by a tendency away from the FV.

[Grover Gunn]

The free offer of the gospel is mentioned in the FV study committee report. See page 2227, lines 6-7.

Grover Gunn

[Pastor Trey Austin]

Pastor Gunn, you know as well as i do that mentioning of the name is a far cry from affirming its full ramifications.

And, btw, there is a difference between affirming the "free offer" and speaking of it as "sincere and well-meant." Lots of Hypers do the former, but never the latter.

Here's the question: is the promise of salvation through Christ Jesus (i.e., "the Gospel") good for (i.e., personally applicable to) every single person who hears it, regardless of their status of election? *OR* is the Gospel only to be preached to all men with the understanding that it's *REALLY* only good for (i.e., personally applicable to) the elect and no one else, and the only reason we preach to all men is just because we personally don't know who the elect are? The former is the "well-meant offer," while one could still call the latter the "free offer."

[A. T. Phillips]

God's wants us to spread the Gospel to all to call the elect and to harden the reprobate.

Not to get feelings of man-centered righteousness.

[Grover Gunn]

Saying that the "grace of the free offer" is "sincere and genuine" is saying a lot in some people's eyes. If you are interested in my personal views, go to http://grovergunn.net/andrew/li.htm.

Grover Gunn

[Grover Gunn]

Perhaps I should quote the quotation from the report which I referenced earlier instead of merely giving the page and line numbers:

"The benefits available to all within the visible church are sincere and genuine, just as is the grace of the free offer."

Grover Gunn

[Terry W. West]

Trey,

Great comments, my friend, on the issue of hyper-calvinism. There is one point of difference though bro....I would not even concede that one can hold to a "free offer" unless it is truly "well meant", to posit a "free offer" that is not well meant is to use a meaningless phrase. I don't think any of our biblical, historic,reformed ground should be surrendered to the hypers.

Blessings in Christ
Terry W. West

[Terry W. West]

Rev. Gunn,

As far as the wording of that quote, I think it is good. As long as the interpreter of that wording give the words there full weight and meaning. :)

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

P.S. Rev. Gunn, Jackson, TN is my home town. I was born and raised there. Please pray for my family who remains there, they are all Oneness Pentecostals. Our gracious Triune God has delivered myself, my wife and children out of the darkness of that false teaching.

[Mark Horne]

Pastor Gunn, your link is dead, at least when I just checked.

I am very interested in this because I've never understood how Dr. Ligon Duncan could claim to be defending "mainstream" covenant theology and make common cause with Engelsma of the PRC.

[Pastor Trey Austin]

Mr. Phillips: "God's wants us to spread the Gospel to all to call the elect and to harden the reprobate."

Exactly my point. The decretive will is the only thing that matters and is the only thing in play. God could have no other desire or purpose in the free and well-meant offer of the Gospel than the salvation of the elect and the (further?) damnation of the reprobate.

This is the best of modern Hyper-Calvinism: "We evangelize! We evangelize!" And here's the Gospel message: "I have good news for all the elect!" "How do i know if i'm elect?" "You don't know and never can; in fact, you can't even believe what i'm telling you, because you're dead. You're a sinner--a dirty, rotten, stinking, good-for-nothing sinner--and God hates your very existence." "Wait a minute, where's the 'good news'?"

No good news for anyone except the elect. So much for that "gospel." Talk about another gospel, which is no gospel at all.

[John K]

Pastor Gunn,
This link does not seem to work: http://grovergunn.net/andrew/li.htm.

[Fred Greco]

The link is fine. Somehow the blogging software added a "." at the end.

http://grovergunn.net/andrew/li.htm

[Terry W. West]

Pastor Gunn,

"The gospel offer is genuine and sincere, even to those who persist in rejecting it. God delights in gospel obedience and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked."

"The Calvinist simply accepts all three of these truths and acknowledges that he cannot totally understand how all three fit together. Those who cannot live with Biblical mystery will reject one of the three to make the other two understandable on the human level."

Amen. I enjoyed your article. Very well stated.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

[David Gray]

Interesting that the Baylys are now labeled as "Federal Vision proponents" by Bob Mattes. No matter they voted for the report.

[Pastor Trey Austin]

Pastor Gunn,

Would you, given your hearty affirmation here of the free and well-meant offer, refute the analogy put forward by Mr. Mattes that the promises of salvation (i.e., the promise of "inheritance") aren't only "addressed" to the elect, and hence, when they are presented to all people as given to them (especially all members of the Church) to receive and rest in by faith, and that that is not "misdelivering" the mail that belongs only to the elect? As you say, those promises are good, even if people spurn and reject them continually and perpetually. And there are reprobates in the Church who spurn and reject those special promises that are given to the Church and all her members, but those promises are still theirs, held out by God to be received in faith. For a member of the body of Christ, the Church, to refuse to trust in Christ and receive the inheritance by that faith, is not to find out you were never part of the family; it is to disinherit yourself by your own lack of faith.

Would you not agree with me that Mr. Mattes's analogy destroys that truth that the promise of salvation from God extends as far as the condemnation goes (and that it is especially applicable to members of the visible Church), and that the promise must be received by faith in order to come to fruition? So, if someone fails to receive the thing promised (i.e., the "inheritance"), it doesn't mean it wasn't "for" him; it means he never embraced it by faith.

This doesn't seem to me a place where good Reformed men can differ. To reject that principle is to reject balanced Calvinism in favor of Hyperism.

[A. T. Phillips]

>This is the best of modern Hyper-Calvinism: "We evangelize! We evangelize!" And here's the Gospel message: "I have good news for all the elect!" "How do i know if i'm elect?" "You don't know and never can;

This is nonsense. This is not the experience of Christians who have the Holy Spirit. This is the mantra of the vain, self-absorbed, and whiny. Humble yourself to the Word of God, and carry yourself like a man.

>in fact, you can't even believe what i'm telling you, because you're dead. You're a sinner--a dirty, rotten, stinking, good-for-nothing sinner--and God hates your very existence." "Wait a minute, where's the 'good news'?" No good news for anyone except the elect. So much for that "gospel." Talk about another gospel, which is no gospel at all.

And get over your obvious fundamentalist childhood.

[Grover Gunn]

I am honored that you are interested in my opinion on this subject. The promises of the covenant are offered to all in the free offer of the gospel and are made to the covenant people ("the promise is to you," Acts 2:29). Yet only the regenerate, whom God has enabled to meet the obligations of the covenant (faith, repentance and obedience), actually possess the salvation which is promised. Some have, erroneously in my opinion, defined the historical administration of the covenant in terms of election to the point that the promises of the covenant belong only to the elect among the covenant people. Some appear to have seriously over-reacted to this by defining election in terms of the historical administration of the covenant to the point that all the covenant people possess the salvation promised and are elect as long as they remain members of the covenant community.

For more detail, go to http://grovergunn.net/andrew/corpind.htm .

Bob has become a very good friend. I know he and I have many common convictions, but he and I are also diverse individuals and I don't know if he agrees with everything I have said above. Maybe he and I will some day have an opportunity to discuss this with each other. I have enjoyed my conversations with Bob in the past.

May God bless!
Grover Gunn

[Pastor Trey Austin]

Pastor Gunn,

Perhaps if you and your compatriots had been as quick to condemn the latent Hyper-Calvinism in those who define the Covenant solely in terms of the elect (like Mr. Mattes does in his little analogy that is supposed to "answer" why the FV is wrong), then there wouldn't have been the sharp reaction that you describe on the other side. My suspicion is, though, that most Calvinists don't think anything about a person making his Calvinism more "consistent" by decretalizing everything (almost to the point of fatalism, but not by that name, of course) in the Christian life. One example that i mentioned before to another fellow is Gordon Clark's little pamphlet (some 60 pages or so if memory serves--of course, published by the Trinity Foundation) that "solves" the problem of evil. Of course, the way he solved it was simply to decretalize all of life and make man's response and responsibility wholly subservient to God's sovereignty. In essence, for him, providence solves it all. No more explanation needed. Well, that's just the kind of Hyper-Calvinistic thinking that has brought us to the point we're at.

I must say, though, that i'm very glad to hear you speak of Covenant "conditions." To be fair, though, i must, question your orthodoxy, since you made "repentance and obedience" [another name for the works of believers] a condition to receiving eternal life through the Covenant of *GRACE*. Everyone knows that this isn't the Covenant of *WORKS*; why make works even *PART* of the condition to receiving the promised inheritance (other than that Scripture says it, i mean)? Perhaps you just work the one into the other (monocovenantalism) and conflate justification and sanctification? No, i won't do that to you. You're obviously not saying anything unorthodox, but then, neither are the FVists, in my opinion--and in this, you seem to be in perfect agreement with them. You've at least done what many who oppose the FV refuse to do: admit that what God promises in the CoG are contingent upon his fulfillment of the conditions God set down in this Covenant. But since God gives grace to fulfill those conditions, we're hardly talking about "works salvation." But then again, maybe you're trying to go down the road to Rome and bring meriting our own salvation in: start by grace (regeneration) and finish by obligation of works (faith, repentance, and obedience). Surely you're not saying that the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers isn't enough to earn eternal life? (Please understand that i'm being purposely ironic in this, since you haven't said anything fundamentally different than most FVists i have read or heard!)

Oh, and BTW, did you or your fellow elders and ministers ever think to talk about "sitting down" with any of the FV men before your presbytery pronounced judgment against them and declared in the most uncharitable fashion (perhaps i shouldn't say "most," since the Morecraft Presbyterian Church [AKA RPCUS Covenant Presbytery] had the *MOST* uncharitable way of doing things) that they were outside of the Reformed faith? Once again, my sense is that you (speaking collectively, not specifically) don't perceive the threat of imbalanced Calvinism when it comes to being lop-sided on the decretal side of things, but when it comes to being lop-sided on the responsibility side of things, you're more than willing to jumpt to action and cry, "PELAGIAN HERETIC!" That is an unfortunate course that has been repeated throughout this whole debacle.

[Douglas Wilson]

Several quick comments:

First, my continued thanks to the Baylys for the integrity of their disagreements -- they reject the FV, but refuse to play politics with it.

And second, a couple quick things on the slavery thing. I can really understand people disagreeing with me on this, and that is not a trouble. What is a trouble is them disagreeing with me in areas where I would disagree with me too, were I really to think that. For those who want to find out what I really believe on this issue can check in a number of places, The first would be my book Black & Tan, reviewed in manuscript by Eugene Genovese, one of America's premier historians of that era. My manuscript was praised highly by him, and so go ahead and differ -- that is fine with me. But I really think patronizing would not be a productive use of your time. And secondly, I address the slavery issue in Letter From a Christian Citizen, my reaction to the atheism of Sam Harris. In that book, I point to the magnificent treatment of slavery by N.T. Wright in his commentary on Philemon. What he does there is essentially my position. And as far as the race issue goes, and the point raised by A.T., if he will check out my contribution on The Slave Narratives in Omnibus III put out by Veritas Press, he will see that his point is a charge I bring against the 19th century American defenders of slavery. Mark Noll's book on the Civil War as a theological crisis does wonderful work on this point as well.

In short, for those who want to come after me on this one, feel free, but the target is not what you have been led to believe by the slander-meisters of the Internet. To find out what my views actually are, you might have to trouble yourself, and read something.

[Andy Dollahite]

To all,

How interesting that Pastor Gunn would write the following:

"Bob has become a very good friend. I know he and I have many common convictions, but he and I are also diverse individuals and I don't know if he agrees with everything I have said above. Maybe he and I will some day have an opportunity to discuss this with each other. I have enjoyed my conversations with Bob in the past."

I was under the impression recently that oral conversation between two people wasn't really necessary for clarifying someone's views, afterall, written exposition is more than enough. Of course, all jesting aside, I think Pastor Gunn is rather wise on at least two accounts:

1) He's not quick to publicly criticize someone he considers a friend. Loyalty is a lost virtue.

2) He recognizes actual personal conversation can go a long way to helping really understand someone else's position.

If only Pastor Gunn's wisdom had been implemented in ohter recent controversies.

[A. T. Phillips]

DOUG WILSON WRITE:
"Does this mean, synthesizer, that you see no value in the practice of cross-examination? Or in the value of clarifying what the written word said? Could I accuse Cal Beisner of Arianism, and enter one of his fine books on the environment into evidence, and say nothing more than "we have all the Arianism we need, right here." And nobody ever gets the chance to point out that the books don't say what it is alleged they say? The job of prosecutors everywhere in the country just got a whole lot easier."

Doug, your ability to go from an adult to a child in these matters is absolutely clinical.

[Douglas Wilson]

A.T. I am afraid I am enough of a child to miss your point entirely. What do you mean?

[Pastor Trey Austin]

Pastor Wilson,

As our Father, Solomon, taught us, there are some fools you answer according to their folly, and their are some fools you don't. The latter rule applies in this case.

[Keith]

"Interesting that the Baylys are now labeled as "Federal Vision proponents" by Bob Mattes. No matter they voted for the report."

From the context, it seems like he's talking about the comments and not the Baylys themselves:

http://reformedmusings.wordpress.com/2007/06/23/the-bias-smoke-screen/

[David Gray]

>From the context, it seems like he's talking about the comments and not the Baylys themselves:

Doesn't read that way to me. Small issue in the balance though...

[Craig French]

After re-reading the original post being scrutinized...I have to say Mattes seemed to be writing about some newly acquired info...I think that helped "seal the deal" for him on Wilson's scholarship. Given his position, and the fact he was put on the committee, and a fairer reading of his post, I believe he performed his task with integrity.

Whether the comment re slavery and Wilson's scholarship was warranted is debatable. I believe him, though, when he says he knew little of the FV going into this thing. He made excellent points about Wilson's own exam appearing stacked while he (apparently) said the same about the PCA's report.

Lots of mudslinging. I like a good deal of what Wilson says, and I think he's an asset to the Reformed community. I disagree with his particular FV views and paedocommunion...I think he's the most orthodox out of the FV crowd, however.

Unfortunately, he chose two topics that seem to evoke knee-jerk reactions: defining justification and how slavery may not have been as bad as our text books and the Rainbow coalition make it out to have been. The former being far more important than the latter.

[Bob]

From the context, it seems like he's talking about the comments and not the Baylys themselves:

Thanks, Keith. I was indeed referring to some of the comments here, not to the Baylys themselves. That's why I didn't name the blog and the link was specifically led to the comments as best as possible in the blog software. I'm still learning what is possible in blogs and have a ways to go to meet my desired proficiency. I genuinely regret any confusion on that point.

The promises of the covenant are offered to all in the free offer of the gospel and are made to the covenant people ("the promise is to you," Acts 2:29). Yet only the regenerate, whom God has enabled to meet the obligations of the covenant (faith, repentance and obedience), actually possess the salvation which is promised.

Grover, you are a very gracious man and a good friend. For the record, I absolutely agree with your statement.

Indeed the gospel with its promises and benefits are *offered* to all. However, the benefits and promises are only *possessed* by the elect. That is the point in my posts--only the elect can *claim* the promises. The post is about who can claim the promises and benefits, not to whom they are offered. If I communicated that poorly, I'm open to suggestions of how to say it better.

Those posts are intended to oppose the Federal Vision view that some generic "covenentally elect" existed in the mind of Paul or anyone else in the New Testament. In the Federal Vision, the "covenentally elect" get the saving benefits of justification, adoption, and sanctification at baptism, but not perseverance, and that's called being "in Christ" by some. My term for this is "baptismal regeneration lite." According to the Federal Vision view, this now requires a "final justification" based on "covenental faithfulness." I've made several posts to refute that specific framework of salvation, which is foreign to Scripture as well as the Standards.

The committee report stands on its own in addressing this framework from a Confessional standpoint. I am now looking at issues that Dr. Leithart is raising on his blog and trying to address those for which I have time from Scripture itself in a way that I don't feel I'm re-developing the Standards. Although I don't agree with Dr. Leithart much of the time, I appreciate and respect his openness in his posts.

For the comment about a judgment of works and the Confession, I have a post dedicated to exactly that issue called "Hi Ho, Hi Ho."

I hope that clears up the issue of hyper-Calvinism as well as the final judgment issue.

Soli Deo Gloria!

[Bob]

After re-reading the original post being scrutinized...I have to say Mattes seemed to be writing about some newly acquired info...I think that helped "seal the deal" for him on Wilson's scholarship. Given his position, and the fact he was put on the committee, and a fairer reading of his post, I believe he performed his task with integrity.

Exactly. Thank you for taking the effort both to carefully re-read the post and to then come here to relate your conclusions.

God Bless!
Bob

[Bob]

OK, I just learned that I cannot use html text tags on this comments section. html tagging works on wordpress blogs like greenbaggins. It will consequently be a bit difficult to discern the quoted section in my last two posts from my reply. Sorry, I'm still learning...

Oh, and there seems to be a recycle time for repeat posts as well. I'm getting there.

[Grover Gunn]

Dear Pastor Trey,

Regarding your inquiry about my referring to the "obligations of the covenant," this language is found in the PCA BCO:

56-4.j.
... When they have reached the age of discretion, they become subject to obligations of the covenant: faith, repentance and obedience. ...

I am out of state right now to conduct a funeral and have limited access to the internet.

May God bless!
Grover Gunn

[David Bayly]

Dear Brothers,

Theology is pursuant to holiness--something I and all of us need to remember in these matters.

It's distressing how much sin is occasioned by fighting for God's truth. This doesn't ultimately remove the need to fight, but there was a reason God rejected a man of blood from building His temple... Please, let's fight without allowing our tactics to degenerate into sin. Joab understood Abner's plea not to antagonize the brethren even with Asahel lying dead in the path.

If you can't do MORE than ad hominem attack, don't comment here. Please. Tim and I will remove nyaa-nyaa comments from the blog when they become obvous. We're not opposed to ad hominem arguments. Do a search and you'll see us defending their usefulness at times. But at some point ad hominem becomes ad nauseum.

Nor do Tim and I have any desire for this blog to become a place where disrespect for those in authority is countenanced. Pastor Wilson is a respected guest here and he will be treated with honor. So too with Pastor Gunn and Mr. Mattes.

This blog is an extension of our homes and churches, and we will not let men we respect be abused here.

Write strongly to the glory of God and we'll leave your commnents alone. But write merely to trash men who are the Lord's anointed and we will have nothing to do with it. We will, in fact, remove such comments.

In Christ,

David Bayloy

[Grover Gunn]

Allow me to make another observation. Some have, erroneously in my opinion, defined the historical administration of the covenant in terms of election to the point that baptism with water is a valid sign and seal of the covenant promise only for the elect. Others have over-reacted to this by defining election in terms of the historical administration of the covenant to the point that baptism with water is always an efficacious means of grace for a salvation that saves only as long as one stays in the covenant community. In contrast to both of these views, I believe that baptism with water is always a valid sign and seal of the covenant promise but is an efficacious means of grace only for the elect and only in the context of a saving faith which always perseveres.

Grover Gunn

[Grover Gunn]

BTW, I hope Doug is still wearing his Clan Gunn tartan tie. Wilson is a sept of Clan Gunn.

Grover Gunn

[Mark Horne]

"In contrast to both of these views, I believe that baptism with water is always a valid sign and seal of the covenant promise but is an efficacious means of grace only for the elect and only in the context of a saving faith which always perseveres."

Do deny common grace? Is it or is it not gracious of God to admit a person into his kingdom, whether or not he is predestined to inherit eternal life?

[Douglas Wilson]

Grover -- cousin -- still have the tie, and still wear it.

[Pastor Trey Austin]

Mr. Mattes wrote: "Indeed the gospel with its promises and benefits are *offered* to all. However, the benefits and promises are only *possessed* by the elect. That is the point in my posts--only the elect can *claim* the promises."

Mr. Mattes, with all due respect, this contradicts what you said on your blog entry. There you said that, in the FVist scheme, the mail that is intended only for the elect is misdelivered to any and every member of the visible Church. Yet, here you claim that the promises are "for" all those members of the visible Church. What does that mean? It means that, carrying forward your analogy, that those promises are *ADDRESSED* to the non-elect members of the visible Church *AS WELL AS* the elect members.

No one disputes (you, nor i, nor any FV advocates i have read) that the elect alone will be the recipients of those benefits. The question that the FV advocates (as i read them) seek to emphasize that the promises are not *ONLY* for the elect, even if they are the only ones who finally receive them, but that the promises of God are for all of the Church (and your controverting them doesn't lend credibility to your claim of agreement with the notion).

If you do agree on that point (and i sincerely hope you do), i also do hope you see how your analogy misrepresents your view. Your analogy claims that the only people to whom those "promises and benefits" (i.e., the life and inhertiance offered in the Gospel and through the means of grace) are addressed exclusively to the elect. You now claim that's not the case.

Which will you retract? Or will you be content to contradict yourself?

[Pastor Trey Austin]

Pastor Gunn wrote: "Regarding your inquiry about my referring to the 'obligations of the covenant,' this language is found in the PCA BCO..."

Yes, my dear brother, i know. That's why, for me, it is all the more enigmatic that FV advocates are being lambasted as though they are redefining something fundamentally about our Covenantal religion, when they, as it seem to me, are simply restating the very things that we have always affirmed as Covenantal Calvinists. The Covenant of Grace isn't an unconditional Covenant (contrary to what many of the Hyper-Calvinists like PRCers and Clarkians want to claim), and we have, in our BCO, codified that view as binding upon all men in our church courts. In other words, we say very clearly that we believe that the Covenant of Grace has conditions, and if we do not meet those conditions, we will not receive what the Covenant promises.

Now, it seems to me that there are several implications from this. First, the truth of Covenant apostacy is upheld, and not refuted. There are people who are really Covenant members (not just "fake" Covenant members who are later found out to be no Covenant members at all to begin with), who will never meet those Covenant obligations and will never receive what they have been promised in the Covenant. Now, we know, by way of explanation, that the reason why anyone, especially a Covenant member, never does do what God requires is because he wasn't enabled by God's grace to do so, but that issue is the eternal and decretal explanation of what happens through man's moral agency and in time.

Second, it affirms that good works (not perfect obedience) are a condition of receiving eternal life (that which is ultimately promised to all members of the Covenant of Grace). Repentance, unless completely intellectualized, always involves man's works; and, too, obedience is itself another name for good works. Both of them are enabled by grace in the life of the believing sinner, and so both of them will be incomplete and riddled with many imperfections; and yet, they are both required in order for a person to inherit eternal life through the Lord Jesus Christ. Does this undercut justification by faith alone? Absolutely not! since salvation (i.e., the actual present possession of eternal life) is much larger than justification; justification is one facet of the whole of salvation, which will only be fully realized on the day of resurrection. Justification is by faith alone, and works are no ground or instrument of it; but works are still integral to receiving eternal life, because they are part of the ongoing sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit that will make the believing man or woman progressively more holy, until the last day, when that work is complete, and that formerly sinful and corrupt believing man or woman will then be spotless and holy in fact and not just in the mind of God (which is what the act of justification does). (BTW, as i have stated before, the final verdict of justification on the day of judgment will be an open acknowledgement of that "fact," and not some other change of status that someone might wrongly assume by the use of the term in the sense of God's reckonning a person righteous.)

Third, it affirms that the center of the Covenant of Grace is not the question, "How do i get saved?" (as though we're dealing with a fire insurance policy) but of the question (as my very good friend Pastor Schlissel once said), "What does the Lord require?" (Micah 6:8). Those who, by God's grace, *ARE* faithful to do what the Lord requires in his Covenant will indeed be ultimately saved, but that isn't what the Covenant is centrally "about." The Covenant is about a life lived in fellowship and communion with our Covenant God, who is, as we speak, transforming the world and subduing all of his enemies. He is making a new heaven and earth, and when we enter his Kingdom (which is just the present colony of that new heaven and earth in the old, waning order) and live in loving subjection to the King of all the earth, we will be part of that new heaven and earth; yet, if we enter that Kingdom and commit treason against that Kingdom, we will be cast out of that Kingdom ("into outer darkness") and have no part in the new heaven and earth. The life that we live is the center of that Covenant Kingdom, and not simply the question of "How can i be saved?"

I say again what i have said before here: I don't see what all the fuss is about? I don't consider myself a Federal Visionist, but i do believe that i have alot in common with them--not because i'm secretly a part of their rebellious attempt to take over, but simply because they teach what Reformed Calvinists have always taught (except the Reformed and Presbyterian dalliances with conversionism and revivalism, which have become part of the individualistic Christian ethos in America and around the world).

[Sean Gerety]

FWIW Dr. Robbins already answered the Wilson/Wilkins pro-slavery nonsense here:

http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=163

Also, I'm glad to see Pastor Trey Austin recognizes the intimate and logical relationship between the the WMO and the FV. The latter is, to a large degree, just the logical outworking of the former. It didn't take long for those following Pastor Austin's errant reasoning to find their way right out of the Christian faith as Wilson, Wilkins and others have done. God willing they won't be able to take too many with them.

[pduggie]

"Regarding your inquiry about my referring to the 'obligations of the covenant,' this language is found in the PCA BCO"

Yes, you see though, as the Report stated, the confession explicitly distinguishes covenant conditions (which always imply merit) and requirements or obligations, which are different and include no merit