Steven Wilkins' Response to
Submitted Written Questions for Louisiana Presbytery's Examination
(available in PDF format)
|
SUB EXAMINATION OF TEACHING ELDER STEVE WILKINS [My responses are
in boldface type, sw] [It should be noted
that I am indebted to the writings of numerous men who are not credited
in the body of my response below. In these responses I have borrowed
freely from the writings of Rich Lusk, Mark Horne, Peter Leithart, Jeff
Meyers, Alastair Roberts, John Barach, James Jordan, and no doubt a
number of others that I can’t remember at present. Of course, none of
these men should be held accountable for any errors that I might have
expressed in the written responses below] I. THE 1. Regarding the
Westminster Standards, what exceptions or reservations did you register
with Louisiana Presbytery when you first became a member? In reviewing the
minutes of Presbytery of May 13, 1989 (the meeting in which I was
received into Louisiana Presbytery), the only exception recorded in the
minutes was my exception to the teaching that the Lord’s Supper is not
to be given to baptized children prior to their admission to the table
by the elders (WLC #177). I believe the Scripture teaches that baptized
children who are capable of eating and drinking the elements of bread
and wine on their own should be allowed admission to the Lord’s table
based upon their membership in the visible church. [It should be noted
that I and our church have not practiced covenant communion but have
continued to submit to the requirements of the PCA Book of Church Order
which requires children to make profession of their faith before being
admitted to the Lord’s table. This has always been our practice and
will continue to be unless our BCO is amended at this point.] I also am fairly
certain that I mentioned a few other quibbles and reservations. The
following are what I remember mentioning: 1. I quibbled
with the terminology of the so-called “covenant of works” (WCF 7.1)
— I do not believe this to be the best way to refer to the pre-fall
covenant between God and Adam since it is open to such wide
misunderstanding regarding the whole matter of works and merit. I do not
disagree, however, with the description of the “covenant of works.” 2. I also took
exception to the description of the Larger Catechism regarding what was
acceptable activity for the Lord’s Day. I do not believe all
recreation should be prohibited as the catechism appears to prohibit. 3. I believe I
also took exception to a certain interpretation of WCF 24.6. If this is
understood to teach that divorce is only lawful in cases of adultery and
willful desertion, then I disagree. It seems to me that the Scriptures
allow for other serious forms of covenant-breaking (life-threatening
abuse; refusal to keep marriage vows in other grossly immoral ways;
etc.) to be forms of “fornication” which is the sole ground of
lawful divorce (Matt. 5:32). As I remember,
these were the only exceptions I declared upon entering Presbytery. [During the
examination I was exhorted by one of our presbyters to use another word
other than “quibble” to describe my reservations, because, he
pointed out, the word “quibble” means to “to equivocate or evade
or to dodge the question.” In fact, that is one meaning of the word.
But it can also mean simply “to have a petty or very minor
objection” which is precisely the way in which I am using it above.
This illustrates once more how the same or similar words can mean
different things depending upon the context. For this reason, I’ll
stick with “quibble” though it is absolutely true that I could use
such words as “scruple” or “minor objection” which would convey
my intention equally accurately.] 2. Since becoming a
member of Louisiana Presbytery, have your views regarding the
Westminster Standards changed in any regard? Are there any additional or
new exceptions that you have? Please explain. I would take
exception to a particular reading of WLC #109. If this is understood to
forbid pictures and all mental images of God then I would disagree with
it. We are not to use pictures/images in worship or as aids to worship,
but I do not understand the second commandment to forbid all
representations of God. I do not believe the second commandment forbids
pictures of Jesus or depicting the Holy Spirit by a dove, e.g. I also would
quibble with the language of WCF 7.1 which implies that the covenant is
something added to the Creator-creature relationship. The implication is
that God, after He created man, realized that there was a great distance
between Himself and His creation and needed to do something additional
to bridge the gap. I don’t think this is the best way to put it. This
implies that the covenant bridges some metaphysical gap, as if man’s
problem is his “creatureliness.” It seems to imply that being a
creature of itself necessitates a relational distance between God and
man. In contrast to this the Scriptures indicate that God enters into
covenant with man by virtue of His role as Creator. Adam is constituted
by creation in covenant with God.Genesis 1 uses the language of
covenant-making to express God’s creative work (speaking, evaluating,
separating, etc.). Genesis 2 is even more explicit. The covenantal name
Yahweh is used there in connection with the creation of man. Man was a
covenantal creature, under God’s covenantal lordship, responsible to
God’s covenant laws and sanctions, enjoying God’s covenant love and
favor, from the very moment that he was created from the dust of the
earth. Furthermore, all men, by virtue of their creation, “know God”
and live inescapably in relation to Him (Rom.1:18ff). 3. Do you believe
any of your public teaching or writing since the beginning of the
“Auburn Avenue Theology” controversy either contradicts or is
inconsistent with the Standards? (Besides your registered exceptions). No I do not. My
concerns I have not been with the Confession’s statements or
definitions but rather with how we read the texts of Scripture which
appear to contradict some of the statements and positions set forth in
the Confession and Catechisms. I do not believe the scriptural texts do
contradict the standards in fact but they are simply using terminology
in a broader way than it is defined by our Confessional standards. This
means that we must consider carefully the meaning of these terms in the
particular contexts in which they are used. That has been my concern in
regard to the so-called “Federal Vision” issues. I firmly hold to
the Calvinistic system of doctrine set forth in the Westminster
Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms as the
Biblical teaching. This is
probably, however, a good place to note the perspective from which the
doctrines of salvation and the application of Christ’s redemption are
discussed in the Thus, chapter 10
(“Of Effectual Calling”) begins by defining the effectual call as
something belonging only to those “whom God hath predestinated unto
life” i.e., the elect as defined in chapter 3 (see 3.5 for this
precise phrase). The rest of the ordo salutis is consistently discussed
in these terms. –
The justification described in chapter 11 is predicated of those “whom
God effectually
calleth.” None others can be said to be “justified” in the WCF sense. –
The adopted children of chapter 12 are those who are “never cast off,
but sealed
to the day of redemption; and inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting
salvation.” According to the Confession, the only people who are “sons
of God” are those who in fact inherit eternal salvation at the last
day. –
The sanctification defined in chapter 13 occurs to those who are
justified in the
sense defined in chapter 11. These alone are “sanctified” according
to the definition
of the Confession. –
“Saving” faith (WCF chapter 14) is only given to the elect (it is
defined as “The
grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving
of their
souls.”). None but the elect may have “saving faith.” Non-saving
faith is not
discussed in this chapter. –
Repentance is called “repentance unto life” and is thus that
repentance that only
the elect can have. And so on. These
chapters do not address the spiritual experience of those who are not
elect (in the WCF 3 sense). Indeed, the Standards have very little to
say about the spiritual experience of the non-elect who are members of
the visible church. WCF 10.4 is perhaps the clearest and fullest
statement. This section refers to those who are members of the church
but who apostatize (those who received the “common operations of the
Spirit”). The Confession makes clear that these who fall away “never
truly come to Christ.” But, the WCF
does affirm that the Spirit works in some way in those who are not elect
(it mentions the “common operations of the Spirit”). What are some
of these “common operations of the Spirit”? The proof-texts give us
some indication of what the writers of the Confession were thinking: –
Matt. 7:22 – the Spirit enables some to prophesy, cast out demons, and
work miracles; –
Matt. 13:20,21 – Some receive the word with joy but only believe for a
while; –
Heb. 6:4-5 – the Spirit enlightens, enables them to “taste of the
heavenly gift; they become partakers of the Holy Spirit, taste the good
word of God and the powers of the age to come; (and so on, the other
proof texts are John 6:37, 64-66; 8:44; 13:18; cf. 17:12) In the end,
however, this gives us very little to go on, and the proof-texts
themselves are not confessionally binding or authoritative. When the
confession says that these non-elect people “never truly come unto
Christ,” it means that they do not receive Christ with a faith that
perseveres unto final salvation. The confession does not address the
question of whether they are able come unto Christ in some other sense
and participate in some sense in the blessings of redemption that
ultimately fall short of the fullness of salvation. Further, when
the confession says that these non-elect people “cannot be saved,”
one must recognize that the Standards use the word “save” and its
cognates almost exclusively to refer to the fullness of salvation
inherited when Christ returns. In this sense, apostates are not saved
because they fail to persevere and fall short of receiving the fullness
of redemption as it is described in WCF 10-18. The other major
text in the WCF that is relevant to the non-elect is WCF 25.2. Here we
find the assertion that all members of the visible church are members of
the Again, the proof
texts used in WCF 25.2 help us to see some of the things that were in
the minds of the members of the Assembly. They refer to Colossians 1:13
to prove that the visible Church is “the kingdom of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” But this text illustrates the very concerns that I have
raised in my teaching and writing. In the verse preceding (1:12) he
includes them among the number of those who have been qualified “to be
partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.” Further, he
goes on in the verses that follow to describe what has happened to the
members of the Church in Does Paul mean
that each and every member of this congregation is “elect” in the
Westminster Confession sense? I don’t think so but that leaves the
question of how exactly he does understand them to be “elect of God,
holy and beloved.” And further, how exactly do they partake of “the
inheritance of the saints”? And, though I am quite certain that only
the elect will finally be redeemed through the blood of Jesus and only
the elect will receive the forgiveness of sins (and I’m sure Paul
would agree) how can Paul state that this reality was true of the
members of the church in Colossae? These are the sorts of questions
I’m seeking to address and to do so in a way that does no harm in the
least to God’s absolute, sovereign, predestination. In showing that
the visible Church is the house and family of God, the Assembly points
us to Ephesians 2:19 where we are told that the members of the church in
These are the
sorts of questions that I’ve been concerned to understand. If we think
that calling members of the visible church citizens of the kingdom, sons
in the family, and members of the house of God requires us to reject
what the Confession says about “the elect” in chapters 10-18, we are
pitting the Confession against itself. 4. Has the
controversy surrounding your teaching caused you to consider whether or
not you need to take further exceptions to the Standards? If so,
explain. I always continue
to think through the Confession to see if there are additional places
where I need to take an exception — but apart from extremely minor
quibbles with words, at present, I am not aware of any places where I
would have to take further exceptions. 5.
Have you written to clarify/reformulate any of your teachings since the
Ad Hoc Committee
on Federal Vision Theology issued its recommendations during the 80th Stated
Meeting, and if so, would you explain any clarifications/ reformulations
that you have
put forth? In the last
revision of our “Summary Statement” we did make substantial
clarifications regarding what I mean by “all blessings” being given
to the members of the church as well as the issues of assurance and
perseverance. I also wrote the “AAPC Session’s Response to Charges
of ‘Heterodoxy’” which was adopted on June 8, 2006, and seeks to
make clear my/our position on various vital topics. In any case, I have
continued to refine the way in which I express my views in response to
various critics and have sought to explain them more clearly to any who
have asked. II. THE MEMORIAL
FROM Regarding the Doctrine of Election: “TE Wilkins
publicly teaches a doctrine of election in flagrant contradiction to our
Standards. Whereas the Confession teaches that “God hath appointed the
elect unto glory” (WCF III.6), TE Wilkins states that the elect are
appointed to a conditional relationship which they can lose through
unbelief. He writes: “The elect are those who are faithful in Christ
Jesus. If they later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect –
they are cut off from the Elect One and thus, lose their elect
standing” (The Federal Vision, p. The memorial
accuses you of teaching a doctrine of election “in flagrant
contradiction to 1. Laying aside for
a moment the argument that Scripture uses the word “elect” in
different ways, can you provide an example(s) in your public teaching or
writing where you affirm the Confession’s definition of election? I’m not quite
sure how to answer this question. The fact is that I have never taught
contrary to the Confession in regard to its view of election. I have
taught this view to our inquirers’ class, our officer training
classes, and have taught it in a Sunday School study where I taught
through the entire confession. My article in the Federal Vision affirms
the traditional, Confessional view on p. 56: “It
has been the common practice in Reformed circles to use the term
“elect” to
refer only to those who are predestined to eternal salvation. Since God
has ordained
all things “whatsoever comes to pass” (Eph. 1:11), He has certainly predestined
the number of all who will be saved at the last day. This number is
fixed and settled, not one of these will be lost. The Lord will
accomplish all His
holy will.” I then follow this
affirmation of the traditional view with a discussion of how the word
“elect” functions in various passages of the Bible. Also in our
“Response to the Charges of Heterodoxy” I wrote this: “We
affirm the teaching on ‘election’ in the Westminster Standards (WCF III.6). In our ‘Summary Statement’ we unanimously adopted this statement: ‘From
before the foundation of the world, God has sovereignly chosen a
multitude no man can number for salvation. The basis of His election
was solely His grace and mercy and nothing in the creature. The
number of the elect can neither increase nor diminish. All who were
chosen by God from the beginning will be surely saved eternally. Not one will be lost.’ This
continues to be our view. We do believe, however, that the terms
‘elect,’ ‘chosen,’
etc., are often used in the Scriptures to refer to those who are members
of the visible church (e.g., restricted
to those who were chosen to eternal salvation. To affirm this, however,
does not require a denial of the teaching of the Confession. It is simply
acknowledging the fact that our theological usage of these terms is often
more narrow than the biblical usage.” 2. Do you at all
deny the definition of election as given in the Standards? Absolutely not,
never have, and God willing, never will. I firmly believe in the
absolute sovereignty of God over all things, including the salvation of
man. 3. Briefly explain
why your statement: “The elect are those who are faithful in Christ
Jesus. If they later reject their savior, they are no longer elect”
(Federal Vision, p. 58) is NOT contradictory to or inconsistent with WCF
III-6). The Presbytery in
making this charge has ignored the context of what I have written and
because of this, has completely missed my point. In the article, this
statement comes in the context of a discussion of how the word
“elect” is used in the Biblical text. God calls Thus, the questions
I’m addressing do not in any way deny what the Confession says in
chapter 3. In no way should this discussion be interpreted to mean that
I deny what I just affirmed (and still believe) on p. 56. In the passage
cited I am focusing the discussion upon how the term is used in the text
of God’s Word where over and over again, entire congregations are
addressed as “elect” or “chosen” or with some equivalent term
(e.g., Col 3:12; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Pe 1:1-2). I go on to suggest that we must
understand Paul’s language covenantally rather than decretively. To
make this distinction in no way requires that I reject one in order to
embrace the other. It seems clear to
me that Peter in particular views the “elect” in the same sense that
the term was used of Israel under the Old Covenant since he applies the
same descriptive terminology used for Israel to the Church (1 Pe 2:9).
Paul and Peter do not appear to use the terms “elect” and
“chosen” to apply exclusively to those who were chosen to eternal
salvation (i.e., in the Westminster Confession sense). They had no
knowledge of God’s decrees and only could judge by what was revealed.
What was revealed was that Jesus was the Elect One and all who are
united to Him as elect in Him.(1 Pe 2:4-6). It seems (at least
to me) to be plain that Paul and other Biblical writers have no
hesitation in identifying those who are members of the Church as
“elect.” This apparently was based upon the fact that the Church is,
as our Confession states, “the household, family, and What I am trying to
set forth seems to be the position Calvin expounds in his sermons on
Deuteronomy. Calvin asserts that being in the Church is a form of
“election” which can be lost: “Now
then it is of God’s free election that we have his Word purely
preached unto
us and that we have his Gospel and Sacraments. And therein we have reason
to confess that he has shown himself generous to us . . . . So then, when
the Gospel is preached in a place and it has the warrants that God gives
men salvation - as when we have Baptism and the Lord’s Holy Supper ministered
uncorruptly - we may say it is an election of God. But yet for all that,
in the meantime he holds to himself those he so wishes in order that people
should not trust the outward signs except by faith and obedience, knowing
that although we have been chosen to be of the Body of the Church, yet
if we do not make that election to our profit, God can well enough cut
us off
again and reserve a final number to himself.” (Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon
53, Saturday, 3 August 1555). Doctrine of the Church: “‘If God is for
us, who can be against us? Christ died, rose again, and makes
intercession for us, who can separate us from the love of God? Clearly, Paul is
not stating promises that are true only for some unknown group called
the ‘elect.’ Nor is he speaking only to a portion of the
congregation whom he judges to be ‘regenerate.’ Rather, he is
applying these promises to all the members of the Church who have been
baptized and united to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection
(Rom. 6).” (The Federal Vision, p. 57). “The reprobate
may be in covenant with God. They may enjoy for a season the blessings
of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession
of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short
of the grace of God” (The Federal Vision, p. 62). Note that Wilkins
here directly contradicts WLC 69, which ascribes these blessings only to
the elect and denies them to the visible church.” 1. Is it true that
you deny the distinction between the visible and invisible church? Absolutely not.
Indeed, the bare fact that I do not believe all members of the visible
church will be infallibly saved proves that I do see a distinction
between the “visible” Church (containing those who persevere in
faith and those who don’t) and the “invisible” Church (which
consists of the whole number of the redeemed, who persevere in faith so
that not one is lost but all without exception attain eternal
salvation). Contrary to the
assertion of the memorial, I wholeheartedly affirm this distinction as
the Westminster Confession defines the invisible church. The
“invisible Church” is not a parallel entity that exists above or
beyond the visible church but rather is the “whole number of the
elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ
the Head thereof;”—in other words, the invisible Church does not yet
exist though it is surely foreordained by God and will surely and
certainly exist at the last day (but then of course, it will exist as a
very visible body). It is only “invisible” in that we can’t see
all the members of it now. I think the
category of “invisible church” can lead us to all sorts of
misunderstandings and misconceptions. I fully agree with Professor John
Murray’s assessment: “There
is no evidence for the notion of the ‘church’ as an invisible entity distinct
from the church visible. . . . ‘the church’ in the New Testament
never appears
as an invisible entity and therefore may never be defined in terms of invisibility.
. . . Strictly speaking, it is not proper to speak of the ‘visible church’.
According to Scripture we should speak of ‘the church’ and conceive
of it as that visible entity that exists and functions in accord with
the institution
of Christ as its Head, the church that is the body of Christ indwelt and
directed by the Holy Spirit, consisting of those sanctified in Christ
Jesus and
called to be saints, manifested in the congregations of the faithful,
and finally
the church glorious, holy and without blemish.” (Collected Writings,
I, 234-235) Christ has only one
Bride and she is a Bride that is in the process of being perfected
(sanctified and cleansed) for Him through time (Eph. 5:25-27) until that
day when she shall be “spotless and without blemish.” Thus, the
Church which throughout history had blemishes and imperfections, will
finally be glorified and perfectly holy at the last day. It seems better to
speak of the “invisible” church simply as the “eschatological
church” — i.e., the church in its perfection as it will exist at the
last day. My accusers are simply disagreeing with my argument rather
than proving that I deny the WCF definition of the church. Indeed, it
seems to me that they are often the ones who deny the distinction
between the “visible” and “invisible” Church in that they
attribute those things the apostles say to be true of the visible Church
exclusively to the invisible Church. The visible Church is denigrated as
being nothing more than a pale and imperfect reflection of the
“true” church (which is, in their minds, the “invisible” church,
the abode of the elect). Ultimately, it is
unquestionably true that only the “invisible Church” will partake of
the blessings of eternal salvation. In history, however, the Church
consists of those who are elect unto final salvation and those who are
not. There are those who are members of the Church but who are not
ordained to persevere in faith, yet they are, like unfaithful
Israelites, still members of the Church, though in the sense that they harbor
unbelief, they can be said to be not “of” the Church. But in saying
this, we are merely acknowledging that the Church in history is a mixed
body. It is important for
us to recognize the fact of the mixed nature of the Church in history,
but this does not mean that there is such a thing as an “invisible
Church” of which you must become a member. The Bible speaks of only
one Church which is the body and bride of Christ and thus our creeds
assert that we believe in “One, holy, catholic and apostolic
church.” That is the simplest and clearest way to speak of the Church. It seems to me that
this same charge could be brought against Calvin, for he also seeks to
deal with some of the same passages of Scripture in a similar manner as
I have done. Thus, for example in his commentary on 2 Peter 2:1-3 Calvin
states: “Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, I
think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is when the grace
of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that He
might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and
devoted to holiness and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle
and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly
said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed.” In his commentary
on Hosea 2:4-5: “it is not enough that God should choose any people
for Himself, except the people themselves persevere in the obedience of
faith; for this is the spiritual chastity which the Lord requires from
all His people. But when is a wife, whom God has bound to Himself by a
sacred marriage, said to become a wanton? When she falls away . . . from
a pure and sound faith. Then it follows that the marriage between God
and men so long endures as they who have been adopted continue in pure
faith.” In his Institutes Calvin states that in some sense, the reprobate may be
said to have received “the gift of redemption” (3.2.11): “Yet, the
reprobate [within the church] are justly said to believe that God is
merciful toward them, for they receive the gift of reconciliation.” In spite of these
statements, I believe Calvin was a thorough-going Calvinist even though
Central Carolina Presbytery apparently believes that Calvin's views are
not compatible with the Westminster Confession of Faith. 2. Explain how your
published views on the benefits that members of the “visible” church
enjoy are NOT inconsistent with WLC # 69 (“The communion in grace
which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their
partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification,
adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests
their union with him.”). First, it should be
noted that the Presbytery has taken the quote they use to prove their
point out of its context in the article. The full sentence reads, “The
clear implication of these passages is that those who ultimately prove
to be
reprobate may be in covenant with God. They may enjoy for a season the blessings
of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession
of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short
of the grace of God.” Note that I refer
to “the clear implication of these passages” which is a reference to
the sixteen passages to which I have just referred on the previous page.
The passages cited attribute these very things to those who are warned
against the danger of falling away and being eternally condemned. In
other words, this is not something I am teaching. Rather, it is what
Paul himself was teaching. The problem of the Presbytery is with Paul
not with me. The Larger
Catechsim is speaking about “members of the invisible church” who
are by definition, the elect. I have no quarrel with that at all and
nothing I have written contradicts that in the least. My questions have
arisen because the apostles appear to attribute these same things to all
the members of the visible church without distinction. For example, Paul
says of the Corinthians (whom he sternly warns against apostasy, I Cor.
10:1-11) that they are sanctified (I Cor. 1:2); have been given the
grace of God (1:4); and have been enriched in all things (1:5); they
share in Christ’s righteousness, wisdom, sanctification and redemption
(1:30-31); they have received the Spirit (2:14-16) and the Spirit dwells
in them (3:16-17); all things belong to them (3:21-23); they have been
born through the gospel preached to them (4:15); they have been washed
and justified by the Spirit (6:9-11); they enjoy communion in the body
and blood of Christ (10:15-17); they have been baptized into one body by
the Spirit (12:13) and are individually members of Christ’s body
(12:27). My question in
light of what WLC affirms (and which I also affirm) is this, “How can
Paul say that these things are true of the members of the church in 3. Would you say
that your published views about the benefits enjoyed by visible church
members are the necessary consequence of the confessional statement that
affirms that the visible church is “the kingdom of the Lord Jesus
Christ and the house and family of God out of which there is no ordinary
possibility of salvation” (WCF 25-2) and BCO Preliminary Principles #3
which states that the “visible church” is the Body of Christ? Yes, precisely. My
suggestion is that these statements indicate how we are to understand
the statements that Jesus, Paul, and the other writers of the New
Testament speak about the blessings that belong to members of the
visible church. 4. How would you
distinguish between the benefits enjoyed by a (decretively) elect member
of the visible Church and a reprobate member of the visible church who
has not yet manifested his apostasy? This is not an easy
question to answer but it does seem to me that the benefits enjoyed by
the “decretively elect” do differ from those received by the
non-elect. First, they differ qualitatively. Thus, for example, though
the non-elect are brought within the family of the justified and in that
sense may be referred to as one of the justified, the elect person’s
justification in time is not only a declaration of his present acquittal
from the guilt of sin but also an anticipation of his final vindication
at the last judgment. The non-elect church member’s
“justification” is not. His “justification” is not the judgment
he will receive from God at the last day. Second, the blessings
conferred differ in their duration. The elect person perseveres and
remains in a state of grace until the end of his life. The non-elect
believer eventually forsakes the faith and falls away from the state of
grace. There may also be other experiential differences between the
elect and the non-elect, but these differences may not be discernible
(to the individuals themselves or to others) until the non-elect person
displays his unbelief in some very explicit and concrete ways. God certainly knows
(and has decreed) the difference between the elect and the nonelect, but
from our creaturely, covenantal point of view there is often no
perceptible difference (e.g., Saul and David were indistinguishable from
one another to all outward appearances in the early phases of their
careers; Judas looked like the other disciples for a time). It is only
as history goes forward, as God’s plan unfolds, that we come to know
who will persevere and who won’t. In the meanwhile, we are to view and
treat all faithful members of the covenant community in the way we see
them treated throughout the New Testament epistles — i.e., all
covenant members are viewed and treated as elect, but also warned of the
dangers of apostasy. The language of the
Bible forces us to acknowledge a great deal of mystery here. For
example, the same terminology that describes the Spirit coming upon Saul
in 1 Sam. 10:6 is used when the Spirit comes upon David (1 Sam. 16:13),
Gideon (Jdg. 6:34), Jephthah (Jdg. 11:29), and Samson (Jdg. 14:6, 9;
15:14). But in four of these five cases (David, Gideon, Jephthah, and
Samson), the man in question was clearly regenerated and saved by the
Spirit’s work (cf. Heb. 11:32). This means that at the outset of
Saul’s career, the biblical narrative itself draws no distinction
between his initial experience of the Spirit and the experience of those
who would obtain final salvation. Saul appears to receive the same
initial covenantal grace that David, Gideon, and other saved men
received, even though God did not enable him to persevere in that grace.
While God no doubt predestined Saul’s apostasy (since he foreordains
all that comes to pass), God was not the Author of Saul’s apostasy
(cf. WCF 3.1). His failure to persevere was due to his own rebellion.
Herein lies the great mystery of God’s sovereignty and human
responsibility (cf. WCF 3.1, 8). I agree with how
this point is addressed in the AAPC “Summary Statement”: “Once
baptized, an individual may be truly called a ‘Christian’ because he
is a
member of the household of faith and the body of Christ (I Cor. 12). However,
not all who are ‘Christians’ in this sense will persevere to the
end. Some
will ‘fall from grace’ and be lost (Gal. 5:4; 1 Cor. 10:1-5). Though
the difference
between those who are predestined to eternal life and those who ‘believe
for a while’ is not merely one of duration (i.e., God works
‘effectually’ in
those whom He has predestined to eternal life so that they do not fall
away in
unbelief), the Bible does not explain the distinction between the nature
of the
work of the Spirit in the reprobate and the nature of His work in the elect,
and even uses the same language for both.” This reality is
reflected in the covenant relationship of marriage. Though men may be
equally married in the eyes of the law, they may have quite different
marriages in terms of the quality of their relationships with their
wives. The presence or absence of biblical love makes a huge difference
in the quality of the marital bond, though it does not affect their
legal status as married men. So it is in the Church. Some members of the
Church are “effectually” (savingly) joined in union with Christ by
faith while others are not. In addressing the
issue of the qualitative difference between the communion the elect have
with God as contrasted with that of the non-elect, I fully agree with
Peter Leithart’s statement explaining this distinction: “First,
God has decreed the eternal destiny of elect and reprobate. That cannot
help but color God’s attitude toward someone who is ultimately reprobate.
He is obviously conscious that any blessing He gives or favor He shows
is blessing and favor to a reprobate. Second, while God decrees before
the foundation of the world all that comes to pass, He
also is active in the outworking of those decrees, and in that activity
He is interactive with His creation. We pray, and He answers, and that
is not pretense; He really does answer prayers (albeit He had planned
from eternity for the prayer and the answer). Similarly, His attitude
toward sinners changes through time. An elect man is an object of
God’s wrath during the week before his conversion, and the object of
God’s mercy during the time after. I submit that the same is true of
the reprobate who receives the word of God with joy for a time: He is an
object of favor while he responds in faith, and then becomes an object
of disfavor. I take Saul as a concrete example of this reality. Again,
this is qualified and complexified by point #1. Third, I am
favorable toward a teleological view of human nature. If you slice into
the life of an elect man at a point of backsliding, and also slice into
the life of the reprobate at a point when he is rejoicing in the gospel,
it will appear that the reprobate’s faith is strong, more living, more
true, than that of the elect. Analyzed in that kind of punctiliar
fashion, the two are well-nigh indistinguishable. But nature is
determined by ends. We are what we are destined to become (which is what
we are decreed to become). Thus, the quality of temporary faith, even
the nature of temporary faith, is different from the nature of true and
living and persevering faith. I’ve used the analogy of marriage to
explain this: A marriage that ends in divorce differs from a happy
marriage in its conclusion; but the conclusion of the marriages reveals
that there was something fundamentally and permanently different in the
two marriages. The differences are never merely differences at the end,
because the end reveals the shape of the whole story-line. How have they had
communion with the Spirit? I am thinking of Hebrews 6 primarily there:
they “have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit” (v. 4). That
might manifest itself in acts of ministry that are empowered by the
Spirit. It may manifest itself in acts of piety, devotion to and joy in
worship, eagerness to hear the word of God. I believe that this all
falls under what the WCF calls “common operations of the Spirit,”
taking “common” here as operations common to the elect and
reprobate.” Doctrine of Perseverance The Central
Carolina Memorial accuses you of directly contradicting the doctrine of
perseverance as taught in WCF 17-1. 1. Explain how your
statements in Federal Vision, pp. 60-62 are NOT inconsistent with WCF
17-1 (“They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually
called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally
fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein
to the end, and be eternally saved.”). The Confession in
Chapter 17.1 is referring exclusively to those who are “effectually
called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally
fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein
to the end, and be eternally saved.” I have no dispute or disagreement
with this in the least. My statements are referring to how the
Scriptures describe what is true of all members of the church (note pp.
58-60 of my article) and what is said to be true of those who are in
danger of apostasy or who actually have apostatized (p. 61). It seems to
me that the Presbytery’s argument would also have to be made against
Paul, Peter, and Jesus as well since all apply the language of salvation
to those whom they say are in danger ultimately of falling short of the
grace of God. –
Paul says that the members of the church in Christ
(I Cor. 10:4-5) and then warns them of perishing like unfaithful –
The writer of Hebrews says that they have been “enlightened” and
been made
“partakers” of the Spirit (Heb. 6:4ff) and sanctified (Heb. 10:29)
and sprinkled
with the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22ff) and yet warns them of falling into
destruction. –
Peter says that apostates have forgotten that they had been “cleansed
from their
former sins” (2 Pet. 1:9) and were “bought” by the Lord (2 Pet.
2:1) and
had “escaped the pollutions of the world” (2 Pet. 2:20). –
Jesus says that those who fail to persevere will have their names
removed from
the book of life (Rev. 3:5; 22:19). Would the
Presbytery be willing to bring their charges against the apostles or
against our Savior? If not, why not? Are these not also denying the
teaching of the Westminster Confession? Of course, to assume so would be
ridiculous. This only shows that identical or similar language can be
used in different ways. But this does demonstrate, I think, how
irresponsible it is for the Presbytery to refuse to consider these
statements apart from their context and the argument that I am seeking
to make. All of us recognize
that the same words may not mean the same things in different contexts
and this fact normally causes us no confusion in the least. We do this
sort of thing all the time. Nearly every Presbyterian and evangelical
minister understands the word “justification” differently depending
upon its context and he does so without feeling compelled to charge Paul
or James with being confusing in their terminology! We see this same
phenomenon even within our Confessional documents. The Directory for the
Public Worship of God when it speaks of the baptism of infants states
that the children of believing parents are “Christians and Federally
holy.” Yet we all know that not every covenant child perseveres to the
end. Should we denounce the writers of the Directory for denying the
teaching of the Confession of Faith 17.1? No we shouldn’t and for good
reason. We all understand that they are using the term “Christian”
in a covenantal sense and not with the same definition that the
Confession uses to describe the elect of God. If the Presbytery
disagrees with my understanding they should simply say so and show where
I am wrong. But to pretend that I am utilizing words with certain
stipulated definitions when I have explicitly said I am not doing so, is
simply misleading. I affirm the Westminster Confession of faith and its
statements as true and the statements made in my article in no way
require a rejection of these truths. You state that,
“All in covenant are given all that is true of Christ. If they
persevere in faith to the end, they enjoy these mercies eternally. If
they fall away in unbelief, they lose these blessings and receive a
greater condemnation than You also state
that, “The clear implication of these passages is that those who
ultimately prove to be reprobate may be in covenant with God. They may
enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the
forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom,
sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short of the grace of
God. . . The apostate doesn’t forfeit
‘apparent blessings’ that were never his in reality, but real blessings
that were his in covenant with God.” (The
Federal Vision, page 62) 2. Regarding those
who ultimately fall away: –
Do you believe that those
who ultimately fall away ever truly possessed eternal life? No,
if they did, they would not have fallen away. –
Do you believe that those who ultimately fall away ever truly possessed
forgiveness of sins? If you mean by
“truly possessed” that they had forgiveness in the same sense that
those who are elect unto salvation have, then the answer is,
“no.” The Bible speaks of members of the visible church, as those
who are counted among the redeemed, washed, and sanctified and promises
forgiveness for all who abide in Christ and persevere in faith. Thus,
though we know that the elect are forgiven and shall surely be acquitted
at the last day, the promise of forgiveness given to us is always
conditional upon our continuing in the faith (which of course, is only
possible by the grace of God and not the result of our own native
strength, will power, or discipline). Thus, Jesus makes plain that those
who refuse to forgive others will not be forgiven by the Father (Matt.
6:14-15). This seems clearly to be the teaching of the parable of the
unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:21-35; see also Mark 11:25-26; Luke 6:27). Note that the
servant is actually forgiven his debt but he refuses to forgive the debt
of his debtor. What made the servant’s sin so grievous is the fact
that he really had been forgiven. If the parable was simply about the
need for us to forgive others, then the first part of the story is
unnecessary. Jesus could simply have told a story about a servant who
didn’t forgive his debtor and was punished by his master. But He
doesn’t because that isn’t the point (or at least, the entire
point). The point is that those
who are forgiven must forgive. And that point depends upon the
servant having genuinely been forgiven at the start of the story.
That’s what drives the story and that’s what makes the ending of the
parable so startling. This once-forgiven servant loses the forgiveness
he had been granted because he didn’t forgive his own debtor. This
seems to set forth a sort of “temporary forgiveness” (for lack of a
better term) that is, in spite of its impermanence, real. If the servant
wasn’t genuinely forgiven, the story loses its impact. He was given a
real promise that he would not be held accountable for his debt. The
point is that God has made such a promise to us in Christ, and therefore
we must forgive our debtors or Jesus’ Father will treat us the way the
master treated the unforgiving once-forgiven servant. Forgiveness is only
found “in Christ.” Apart from Him, there can be no forgiveness, no
salvation. Those who are faithful members of Christ’s church, trusting
in His work in their behalf are forgiven and must continue to believe in
order to maintain this status. This is a difficult concept to express
(and I don’t believe it is addressed in our Confession or catechisms)
but it seems to me to be clearly taught in the Scriptures. However we might
state this, we would have to maintain that the “forgiveness”
received by such a person is not identical to that received by the
elect. To repeat what I’ve said earlier: First, differs in its
duration. The elect person perseveres and remains in a state of grace
until the end of his life. The non-elect eventually forsakes his faith
and falls away from the state of grace. And second, it differs
qualitatively. The elect person’s forgiveness in time is an
anticipation of his final vindication at the last judgment. The
non-elect’s “forgiveness” is not. Although the non-elect person
has standing for a time in the church which is “realm” of the
forgiven, his justification is not the judgment he will receive from God
at the last day. Ultimately, it seems to me to be impossible
systematically to define and enumerate what all these qualitative
differences may be. To the degree that we can even identify any
differences, we can only do so retrospectively, after an individual has
moved significantly along the path of rebellion and unbelief toward
apostasy. – Do you believe
that those who ultimately fall away ever truly possessed salvation? Again I understand
you to mean by “truly possessed” that they have salvation in the
same sense that those who are elect unto salvation have it. If that is
your meaning, then the answer is, “No they do not.” If they had
salvation in that way, they would never have apostatized in the first
place. The Bible, however, speaks of salvation in three tenses. In many
instances, the biblical writers view salvation as an eschatological
concept — i.e., it is something that will not come to pass until the
last day. But salvation is also spoken of as a past reality (salvation
was determined in eternity past when God chose you in Christ, it was
purchased when Christ died on the cross and rose again and then applied
to you at your conversion). But salvation is also spoken of as a present
and progressive reality (e.g., we are in to “work out” our salvation
in fear and trembling, Phil. 2). Ultimately, no elect person can lose
his salvation, however much he may backslide. This is the point of
Jesus’ teaching in John 10 — God the Father and God the Son will not
lose their grip on those they have chosen for final salvation. But the Biblical
language becomes more complicated when speaking of the members of the
visible Church. There is a sense in which we can say that all those in
covenant are “saved.” They have been covenantally delivered out of
the world and brought into the glorious new creation embodied in the
resurrected Christ even though not all of them will persevere. Thus Jude
(5) can speak of the Israelites as having been “saved,” and then
destroyed, because they did not persevere. The preface to the Ten
Commandments addresses Again, there is no
question that only God’s elect, those predestined for final salvation,
will infallibly persevere to the end. They cannot fall away because God
is determined to keep them in the path of life. But reprobate covenant
members may for a time experience a quasi-salvation. They may be said to
have been, in some sense, “bought” by Christ (1 Peter 2),
“forgiven” (Matt. 18), “renewed” (Mk. 4), etc., and to have lost
these things through unbelief. One way to
understand this is to think of salvation more in “relational” terms
than in metaphysical ones.
“Salvation” is not a “thing” we possess that can be lost and
found, like our car keys. Rather, it is a matter of being rightly
related to God. But relationships are not static, timeless entities.
They are fluid and dynamic. Some marriages start well; the couple is
full of love. But then things go sour. Our salvation covenant with the
Lord is like a marriage. If we persevere in loyalty to Christ, we will
live with him happily ever after. If we break the marriage covenant, he
will divorce us. It may not be wise to call this “losing one’s
salvation,” but it would be unbiblical to say nothing at all was
really lost. That would simply be a denial of the reality of the
covenant. The visible Church
may be viewed as the realm of “salvation” since it is the body of
Christ (WCF 25:2). Thus, there is a sense in which we may speak of those
who are members of the church as those who are “saved” in the same
way that we may address them as the “redeemed” and “saints.” But
in regard to non-elect members of the church, this will prove to be only
a temporary standing. If they never believe or cease to believe in
Christ, they shall not be saved at the last day and we may say in one
sense that they never had “salvation” — certainly not in the sense
that our Confession uses the term. –
If you answered yes to any of these questions, how do you reconcile your
teaching with: Westminster
Confession of Faith 17.1 (“They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved,
effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally
nor finally
fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein
to the
end, and be eternally saved.”), and
Westminster
Larger Catechism 79 (“Q. May not true believers, by reason of their imperfections,
and the many temptations and sins they are overtaken with, fall away
from the state of grace? A. True believers, by reason of the
unchangeable love
of God, and his decree and covenant to give them perseverance, their inseparable
union with Christ, his continual intercession for them, and the Spirit and
seed of God abiding in them, can neither totally nor finally fall away
from the state
of grace, but are kept by the power of God through faith unto
salvation.”), and All
the elect, and they only, are effectually called: although others may
be, and often
are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some common operations
of the Spirit; who, for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered
to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to
Jesus Christ.”),
and As I have shown,
the Confession in each of these places speaks from a decretal
perspective. –
WCF 17.1 speaks of those who are “effectually called” and the
Confession defines
“effectual calling” as the gift of “saving faith” which cannot
die out or
be lost but which perseveres to the end. –
WLC #79 speaks of “true believers” (as opposed to temporary
believers or hypocrites)
as those who have the “unchangeable love of God and his decree” to
give them perseverance — i.e., it is referring to those who are
“kept by the power
of God through faith unto salvation.” –
LC #68 speaks of the “elect” as the only ones who are “effectually
called.” Thus, in every
case, the standards are not referring to apostates and what might be
true of them prior to their apostasy, but they are speaking only and
exclusively of those who are chosen to final salvation. My concerns are
not with these statements of the Confession with which I wholeheartedly
agree. My concerns center around understanding what the Scriptures say
to be true of those who are members of the church but not elect. How is
it that the “non-elect” can be said to have “forgotten that they
were cleansed from their former sins” (2 Pet. 1:9)? How is it that
they can “trample the Son of God underfoot and count the blood of the
covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing” (Heb. 10:29)?
Clearly, they were not elect (in the WCF sense) or they wouldn’t have
done these things. Thus, the Confession, because it doesn’t address
these passages directly or deal with the issue of apostasy thoroughly is
of little help to us at these points. 1
John 2:19 (“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if
they had been of
us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might
be made
manifest, that none of them were of us.”) There are a number
of ways in which we can understand this passage. The key issue in the
text concerns the “us” that the apostates have departed from. It
could refer to the church and thus be saying that those who “went
out” show themselves to be nonelect (by the fact that they left the
church). Since the Church is the community of the elect, to leave the
Church is to demonstrate that you are not of that number. Only those who
persevere in faith are elect (in the WCF sense). Another possible
interpretation is that the “us” refers to the apostles. John may be
referring to false teachers who were sent out from the apostles, but who
departed from the message of the gospel. These “went out from us”
i.e., they were sent out by the apostles, but they did not represent
them or the gospel faithfully (thus, they “were not of us” and did
not continue “with us”). John could also be
saying that these apostates claimed to be apostles, but their departure
from the covenant community proves they never really were (they were not
“of us”) — instead they were anti-Christs. Whatever may be the
case, there is no compelling reason to say that John is claiming these
eventual apostates never experienced ANY blessing whatsoever while they
remained in the covenant community. Note his continual references to
“abiding” in what has
been received throughout his writings. John does not deny that they were
“of us” in every possible sense. Exegetically and grammatically, it
is possible that John is saying they ceased to be part of us, rather
than that they never were part of us. There seems to be
various kinds of apostasy. Some apostates may be hypocrites all along,
self-conscious in their unbelief. Others, however, may be like Saul, who
seems to have had a genuine faith, hope, and love for a time before he
fell away in unbelief and rebellion (he was one of those who believed
“for a time,” Luke 8:13). The biblical writers rarely call into
question whether or not their hearers have received grace; usually this
is taken for granted by virtue of their membership in the body of
Christ. What they question is whether or not their hearers will continue
in the grace they have received. Doctrine of Assurance: 1. Do you believe
that your teaching on assurance contradicts WCF 18-2? If so, how? No, I do not
believe my teaching contradicts WCF 18.2. In the quote from my article
in The Federal Vision (p. 67; note 15 on p. 69), I am not denying the
possibility of assurance or “infallible assurance” to which the
Confession alludes. Rather, I am trying to show the appropriate grounds
of such assurance and the appropriate way to attain it. We do not attain
assurance by trying to discern the sincerity of our faith or repentance
through introspection of our hearts and examination of our motives,
affections, or feelings. Our hearts are deceitful and, thus, our
assurance cannot be grounded upon what we feel or think we discern in
the recesses of our souls. Our assurance
is founded on Christ Himself and His work and the promises of God
revealed in the Scriptures as well as the visible fruit of the
Spirit’s work in our lives. Note how the
Confession teaches that one obtains “infallible” assurance (WCF
18.1). Certain assurance can be obtained only by those who “truly
believe” [i.e., have saving faith, WCF 14] and sincere love for the
Lord Jesus, and who endeavor “to walk in all good conscience before
him” [i.e., who repent, believe, and obey] — these may be assured
that they are in a “state of grace” and rejoice in the hope of
God’s glory. Thus, assurance is grounded upon: believing the promises
of God; the “inward evidence” of those graces (which is always
manifested outwardly and according to the textual proofs include
obedience to God’s commandments; love of the brethren; honest conduct;
and godliness); and the witness of the Spirit (Who confirms our faith
through the fruit of holiness He produces in our lives). How do we discern
“saving faith”? In WCF 14.2, we are told the characteristics of
saving faith: Saving faith believes to be true whatever is revealed in
the Word and “acts” in accordance with what is revealed: “yielding
obedience to the commands; trembling at the threatenings, and embracing
the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.” Again,
the marks of saving faith are not hidden but evident in the life of the
believer. Repentance unto
life is also marked by outward fruit (WCF 15.2 “By it, a sinner, out
of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the
filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature,
and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of his mercy in
Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as
to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with
him in all the ways of his commandments.”). Paul points to this in 2
Cor. 7:11: “For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly
manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves,
what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what
vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this
matter.” These marks focus
upon the fruit of the Spirit in the life, not upon some hidden reality
that we are able to discern by introspection. Thus, as sin expresses
itself in our bodily actions (i.e., lust embodies itself in a way of
looking; anger in a way of speaking; rebelliousness in a way of hearing,
etc.) so does obedience. Selfexamination is a matter of paying careful
attention to the way in which we are looking, hearing and speaking and
not a matter of seeking to discover some disembodied, “internal”
desires. Faith is not some secret invisible substance lurking in the
soul. Rather, faith is a particular way of relating to the world outside
of us. Faith is a way of seeing, a way of hearing, a way of speaking, a
way of eating and drinking. Faith is always acted out in visible,
observable ways. We see this illustrated in the way in which Paul speaks
of the faith of the various churches. He does not regard their faith as
essentially hidden or private but something that is evident and manifest
(e.g. Romans 1:8; Colossians 2:5; 1 Thessalonians 1:8-10; 3:5-7; 2
Thessalonians 1:3; Philemon 5). Self-examination therefore, always
involves examining what is visible and manifested in our lives and is
not a matter of searching the depths of our souls for proper motives and
feelings. The promises of God
are also sealed and confirmed by the sacraments (WCF 27.1 they serve
“to confirm our interest in Christ”). Baptism means that I have been
joined to Christ covenantally, united to His body by the Spirit (I Cor.
12); it means that I have put on Christ Jesus (Gal. 3). All the promises
of God are delivered to me and are properly and truly mine. There is no
reason to doubt these promises if I am clinging to Christ by faith. The
very fact that baptism is a “sign” and a “seal” confirms my
standing and I am to rejoice in the grace of God given to me in Christ
Jesus. Assurance must not be sought apart from the ordained signs and
seals of God’s mercy and grace. My concern in the
portion of the article quoted was not to deny the possibility of certain
assurance, but the opposite. I am seeking to discourage the sort of
introspection that can lead to a great deal of confusion and doubt and
to point to the proper way to obtain certain assurance. Rather than
looking into your heart, it is far better to look away from yourself to
Christ as He has revealed Himself in His Word and sacraments as the
ultimate ground of our assurance. 2. Do you affirm
the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit is at least one of the ways a
believer can have assurance? Yes, as I explain
above. You state that,
“The covenant perspective enables us to assure the people of God of
their blessedness without tolerating or condoning ungodly presumption
upon the grace of God. It enables us to assure Christians of their
acceptance with God without needlessly undermining their confidence in
God’s promises (by forcing them to ask questions of themselves they
cannot answer with certainty.” [Your footnote at this point identifies
such questions as: “Have you truly believed?”; “Have you sincerely
repented?”; “Do you have a new heart?”; “Have you been truly
converted?” etc.] (The Federal Vision, page 67; note 15 on page 69) 1. How do you
reconcile this with Westminster Confession of Faith 18.1? [“Although
hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with
false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favour of God, and
estate of salvation (which hope of theirs shall perish): yet such as
truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring
to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be
certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice
in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them
ashamed.”] 2. How do you
reconcile this with Westminster Confession of Faith 18.2? (“This
certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded
upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon
the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of
those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the
Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children
of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are
sealed to the day of redemption.”) I believe I have
answered both of these in my response above. Doctrine of Baptism But, while the
Confession describes baptism as a sign and seal of Christ’s blessings
– including regeneration (WCF XXVI. 1) – the Standards do not equate
all baptized persons with the elect, nor do they equate baptism with
regeneration. Wilkins teaches
that “If [someone] has been baptized, he is in covenant with God”
(The Federal Vision, p. 67)… “covenant is union with Christ” (p.
58)… and “being in covenant gives all the blessings of being united
to Christ” (p. 58), which blessings he enumerates by appeal to Eph.
1:3, stating, “those who are in covenant have all spiritual blessings
in the heavenly places” (p. 58). The doctrine found in these
representative statements from TE Wilkins’ teaching can be none other
than that to be baptized is to have all the eternal blessings of
salvation and, by inference, he teaches that all persons baptized in
water must be eternally saved, unless they apostatize. This is made
explicitas TE Wilkins applies all the blessings noted in Paul’s First
Epistle to the Corinthians to those who receive water baptism, including
the salvific blessings of union with Christ, reaching all the way back
to election from before creation to final salvation at the end of
history. Thus, in contrast to the Confession’s teaching that water
baptism is a sign and seal of these salvific blessings, Wilkins plainly
teaches that water baptism grants actual possession of these salvific
blessings. The Central
Carolina Memorial asserts that your public teaching on the efficacy of
baptism is “strikingly different” from the Standards. 1. Do you believe
that every baptized person possesses “all the eternal blessings of
salvation?” No. I do believe
that baptism delivers over to us all the promises of God in Christ Jesus
(for this reason the LC #167 imposes upon us the necessity of
“improving our baptism” by “growing up to assurance of pardon of
sin, and of all other blessings sealed
to us in that sacrament”). In the AAPC revised summary statement on
Baptism, we state this: “By
baptism, one enters into covenantal union with Christ and is offered all his
benefits (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1ff; 2 Cor. 1:20). As Catechism
#94 states, baptism signifies and seals “our ingrafting into Christ, and
partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace.” Baptism in itself
does not,
however, guarantee final salvation. What is offered in baptism may not be
received because of unbelief. Or, it may only be embraced for a season and
later rejected (Matt. 13:20-22; Luke 8:13-14). Those who “believe for
a while”
enjoy blessings and privileges of the covenant only for a time and only in
part, since their temporary faith is not true to Christ, as evidenced by
its eventual
failure and lack of fruit (1 Cor. 10:1ff; Hebrews 6:4-6). By their unbelief
they “trample underfoot the Son of God, count the blood of the covenant
by which they were sanctified an unholy thing, and do despite to the
Spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29) and thus bring greater condemnation upon themselves.” To say that the
baptized individual is offered all Christ’s benefits is not saying
that the baptized is given automatic salvation apart from faith. Rather,
these promises are given over to him and are his, but they must be
embraced by faith for him to enjoy their benefits in salvation. Charles
Hodge in his commentary on Ephesians 6:1 states this view in a similar
way. In speaking of the baptism of infants, he states that infants are
baptized on the basis of the “faith of their parents” and then goes
on to say that “their baptism secures to them all the benefits of the
covenant of grace, provided they ratify that covenant by faith.” All
the benefits of Christ and the new covenant are presented, delivered
over to the baptized individual, but they cannot secure salvation apart
from faith. Since faith is a
“gift of God” this in no way implies that we are saved by works (as
if faith is a purely human work) but rather it is to emphasize that we
are saved by grace through faith. Baptism, as the Confession teaches,
obligates the baptized to believe in Christ. The baptized individual who
refuses to believe or who ceases to believe in Jesus will suffer an even
greater condemnation than the world. He has “received the grace of God
in vain.” 2. What does baptism accomplish and what does it not accomplish? I affirm precisely
what the Westminster Confession teaches in regard to baptism. The
Confession does not equate all baptized persons with the elect (“elect
unto eternal salvation”); nor do I. The Standards do not equate
baptism with regeneration (i.e., effectual calling which is only given
to those who are elect unto eternal salvation); nor do I. I do believe that
baptism is a work of God the Holy Spirit (WCF 27.3) by which He brings
about union with Christ by joining the baptized with the visible church.
As WCF 28.1 teaches: Baptism is “a sign and seal of the covenant of
grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of
sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in
newness of life.” Biblically, a
“sign” is not a picture but a powerful act of God which results in
deliverance for God’s people (note the “signs” that God did in If the visible
Church is the body of Christ (as the confession and the Bible teach),
and if baptism unites one to the visible Church (as the confession and
the Bible teach), then we may say that we are united to the body of
Christ by baptism (as the confession and the Bible teach). And again, to be
united to the body of Christ is to have all spiritual blessings and
benefits of Christ delivered over to you by promise. This does not mean,
however, that the one baptized is saved automatically by his baptism
apart from his personal faith in the Savior. Salvation is always and
only by grace through faith. I’m not sure how
these statements show that my views are “strikingly different” from
that of the Standards (as the Presbytery charges). My views are amply
supported by the historic views of many Reformed theologians and creeds
as well as by our own Confession. Note the following for a few examples: –
The prayer after baptism from the God,
Heavenly Father, we give you eternal praise and thanks, that you have granted
and bestowed upon this child your fellowship, that you have born him
again to yourself through your holy baptism, that he has been
incorporated into
your beloved Son, our only Savior, and is now your child and heir.
Grant, most
loving and faithful Father, that we in the whole course of our lives might
prove our thankfulness for your great grace, faithfully bring up this child
through all the situations of life and that we with this child as well, might
more and more die unto the world, and joined to the life of your Son, our
Lord Jesus, daily grow in grace, that we might ever praise you and be a blessing
to our neighbor, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen” (cited in Hughes
Old, Reformed Baptismal Rites, 167). –
The baptismal rite in the Genevan Psalter of 1542: The form begins with Jesus’
words to Nicodemus (one must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God)
and outlines the plan of redemption and then explains baptism in these 28 words:
“All these graces are conferred upon us when he is pleased to incorporate
us into his Church by baptism. For in this sacrament he testifies to us
the remission of our sins. And for this cause, he has ordained the sign
of water,
to signify that as by this natural element the body is washed of its bodily
odors so he wishes to wash and purify our souls.” And later in the form:
“Here we have a sure witness that God wishes to be a loving Father, not
counting all our faults and offenses. Secondly, that he will assist us
by his Holy
Spirit so that we can battle against the devil, sin, and the desires of
our flesh,
until we have victory in this, to live in the liberty of his kingdom.” Futhermore:
“. . . those two things are accomplished in us, through the grace of
Jesus Christ: it follows that the truth and substance of baptism is comprised
in him. For we have no other washing than in his blood, and we have
no other renewal than in his death and resurrection. But as he communicates
to us his riches and blessings by his word, so he distributes them
to us by his sacraments” (cited in Old 173-174). –
We have very similar language used in our Directory for Worship where we read,
“children by Baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the and
united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of
Christ, do
renounce, and by their Baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world,
and the flesh.” –
Martin Bucer, Calvin’s mentor, wrote the following in his 1537
baptismal liturgy.
This prayer is to be offered after the baptism: “Almighty God, heavenly
Father, we give you eternal praise and thanks, that you have granted
and bestowed upon this child your fellowship, that you have born him again
to yourself through holy baptism, that he has been incorporated into
your beloved
son, our only savior, and is now your child and heir.” –
Irish Articles of Religion (1615) on baptism: 89. “Baptism is not only
an outward
sign of our profession, and a note of difference whereby Christians are
discerned from such as are no Christians; but much more a Sacrament of our
admission into the Church, sealing unto us our new birth (and consequently
our Justification, Adoption, and Sanctification) by the communion
which we have with Jesus Christ.” –
The Second Helvetic Confession (1564) teaches that God promises to give us
Christ in the sacraments: “But the principal thing that God promises
in all
the sacraments and to which all the godly in all ages direct their
attention (some
call it the substance and matter of the sacraments) is Christ the Savior...by
whom all the elect are circumcised without hands through the Holy
Spirit, and are washed from all their sins.” Concerning baptism, the Confession
teaches, “Now to be baptized in the name of Christ is to be enrolled,
entered, and received into the covenant and family, and so into the inheritance
of the sons of God; yes, and in this life to be called after the name of
God; that is to say, to be called a son of God; to be cleansed also from
the filthiness
of sins, and to be granted the manifold grace of God, in order to lead a
new and innocent life. Baptism, therefore, calls to mind and renews the great
favor God has shown to the race of mortal men. For we are all born in the
pollution of sin and are the children of wrath. But God, who is rich in mercy,
freely cleanses us from our sins by the blood of his Son, and in him adopts
us to be his sons, and by a holy covenant joins us to himself, and enriches
us with various gifts, that we might live a new life. All these things are
assured by baptism. For inwardly we are regenerated, purified, and renewed
by God through the Holy Spirit and outwardly we receive the assurance
of the greatest gifts in the water, by which also those great benefits are
represented, and, as it were, set before our eyes to be beheld.” The
1560 Scots Confession of John Knox is equally forthright: “And so we utterly
condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else
than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by baptism we are
engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness,
by which
our sins are covered and remitted.” The
French Confession (1559) makes the same point: “We acknowledge only two
sacraments, common to the whole church, the former whereof is baptism,
given unto us to witness to our adoption, for by it we are grafted into the
body of Christ, that being washed with his blood we might be renewed by his
Spirit unto holiness of life. . . . [I]n baptism, God gives us really
and in fact that
which he there sets before us; and that consequently with these signs is given
true possession and enjoyment of that which they present to us.” Casper
Olevianus (Co-Author of Heidelberg Catechism): “When a baby is baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ, the parents should be assured that just as
certainly as the water cleanses his or her body, so certainly does the Father
through the Holy Spirit seal in his or her heart gemeynschafft [meaning
community, fellowship and common identity] with the body and blood
of Christ and, through that communion, the double benefit of the covenant—the
forgiveness of sins and the beginnings of righteousness and holiness.”
(Quoted in Lyle D. Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age:
The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus ( Books,
1996), 99.) Scottish
Baptismal Rite from the 1556 Book of Common Order of John Knox, gives
these directives: Minister:
Do you here present this child to be baptized, earnestly desiring
that he may be engrafted in the mystical body of Jesus Christ? Answer:
Yes, we require the same. The
minister proceedeth: Then let us consider, dearly beloved, how Almighty
God hath not only made us his children by adoption (Rom 8;
Gal 4; Eph 1) and received us into the fellowship of his church, but also
hath promised that he will be our God and the God of our children,
unto the thousand generation (Gen 17; Isa 56). Which things,
as he confirmed to his people of the Old Testament by the sacrament
of Circumcision, so hath he also renewed the same to us in his
New Testament by the sacrament of Baptism, doing us thereby to wit
[i.e., in order that we might know] that our infants appertain to him
by covenant and, therefore, ought not to be defrauded of those holy
signs and badges, whereby his children are known from infidels and
pagans (Gen 17; Col 2: Acts 10). Neither
is it requisite that all these that receive this sacrament have the
use of understanding and faith, but chiefly that they be contained under
the name of God's people, so that remission of sins in the blood of
Christ Jesus doth appertain unto them by God’s promise; which thing is
most evident by and
born (either of the parents being faithful) to be clean and holy (1 Cor
7). Also our Saviour Christ admitteth children to his presence, embracing
and blessing them (Mark 10; Matt 10; Luke 18; Psalm 22). Which
testimonies of the Holy Ghost assure us, that infants be of the number
of God's people and that remission of sins doth also appertain to them
in Christ. Therefore, without injury they cannot be debarred from
the common sign of God’s children. And yet is not this outward action
of such necessity that the lack thereof should be hurtful to their salvation,
if that, prevented by death, they may not conveniently be presented
to the church. Note Calvin’s
words: “Let
us know, that the Apostle does not simply exhort us to imitate Christ,
as though
he had said that the death of Christ is a pattern which all Christians are
to follow; for no doubt he ascends higher, as he announces a doctrine, with
which he connects, as it is evident, an exhortation; and his doctrine is this
– that the death of Christ is efficacious to destroy and demolish the depravity
of our flesh, and his resurrection, to effect the renovation of a better
nature, and that by baptism we are admitted into a participation of this grace.
This foundation being laid, Christians may very suitably be exhorted to
strive to respond to their calling. Farther, it is not to the point to
say, that this
power is not apparent in all the baptized; for Paul, according to his
usual manner,
where he speaks of the faithful, connects the reality and the effect with
the outward sign; for we know that whatever the Lord offers by the visible
symbol is confirmed and ratified by their faith. In short, he teaches what
is the real character of baptism when rightly received. So he testifies
to the
Galatians, that all who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.
(Galatians 3:27.) Thus indeed must we speak, as long as the institution
of the Lord and the faith of the godly unite together; for we never have
naked and empty symbols, except when our ingratitude and wickedness hinder
the working of divine beneficence. (Commentary on Romans 6:3-4). And in the
Institutes: “Baptism
is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the
Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God.
Moreover, the end for which God has given it (this I have shown to be common
to all mysteries) is, first, that it may be conducive to our faith in him,
and secondly, that it may serve the purpose of a confession among men. The
nature of both institutions we shall explain in order. Baptism
contributes to
our faith three things, which require to be treated separately. The
first object,
therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord, is to be a sign and evidence
of our purification, or (better to explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed
instrument by which he assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered,
and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned,
never imputed. For it is his will that all who have believed be baptised
for the remission of sins (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38).” (Institutes
4.15.1) And again: “So
then we must ever come to this point, that the Sacraments are effectual and
that they are not trifling signs that vanish away in the air, but that
the truth
is always matched with them, because God who is faithful shows that he
has not ordained anything in vain. And that is the reason why in Baptism we
truly receive the forgiveness of sins, we are washed and cleansed with
the blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are renewed by the operation of his Holy Spirit.
And how so? Does a little water have such power when it is cast upon the
head of a child? No. But because it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ
that the
water should be a visible sign of his blood and of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore baptism
has that power and whatsoever is there set forth to the eye is forthwith
accomplished in very deed.” (Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 200,
Wednesday, 15 July 1556). “So
then, when the Gospel is preached in a place and it has the warrants
that God
gives men salvation–as when we have Baptism and the Lord’s Holy Supper
ministered uncorruptly–we may say it is an election of God . . . . Do we
have his Word? It is free grace to us, where he has bound us to himself. Do
we have his sacraments? They are the badges of his fatherly election. We have
not deserved these things.” (Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 53, Saturday,
3 August 1555). “We
assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains
of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my
readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for
therein both
remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission
is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress
during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not
instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is
effaced it is
null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine.” (Antidote
to the Council of And “If
we do not profit from the good things God has given us, He will not
spare us, especially since He has shed more praiseworthy grace upon us than
He did upon the people of us
as His people, He gave us his Son as a sure and certain sign of the
great love
He bears us. Furthermore, He has seen to it that the Devil and all the armed
forces of Hell can do nothing against us, as He has ransomed us by the death
and passion of His Son. Since the time He began our salvation, He has sustained
us daily by His grace; so we can be sure He will continue to multiply
His grace upon, provided that we praise the mercy He has shown us and
provided that we are truly repentant and beg His pardon for our sins.” (sermon
on Micah). I think it is
simply inconceivable that the Westminster Standards would so depart from
this pervasively Reformed sacramental view as to teach anything which is
remarkably different and out of accord with the confessional tradition
of the Reformed Church. It seems, rather, that the language of the
Confession regarding baptism actually reflects this tradition quite
strongly. Thus: WCF
28.1 “Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[Matt.
28:19] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into
the visible church;[I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28] but also, to be unto him
a sign
and seal of the covenant of grace,[Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12] of his ingrafting
into Christ,[Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5] of regeneration,[John 3:5; Tit. 3:5]
of remission of sins,[Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16] and of his giving up
unto God,
through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[ WCF
28.6 “The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein
it is administered;[John 3:5, 8] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of
this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really
exhibited, and
conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as
that grace
belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed
time.[ That
they are “effectual means of salvation” (WSC Q #91: How do the sacraments
become effectual means of salvation? A91: “The sacraments become
effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that
doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working
of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.”) And
that they are required if we are to (ordinarily) escape God’s wrath
and curse
due to us for sin (WSC Q #85: What doth God require of us, that we may
escape his wrath and curse due to us for sin? A: To escape the wrath and
curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus
Christ, repentance
unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ
communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.”) Dr. David F. Wright
in his article on the Westminster Confession of Faith’s view of
baptism makes this comment: “What then about the efficacy of baptism
according to the Westminster Confession? Its central affirmation seems
clear: ‘the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited
and conferred by the Holy Ghost’ (28:6). It is true that a variety of
qualifications to this assertion are entered in the chapter on baptism:
efficacy is not tied to the moment of administration (ibid.), grace and
salvation are not so inseparably annexed to baptism that no person can
be regenerated or saved without it (28:5) or that all the baptized are
undoubtedly regenerated (ibid.). But these qualifications serve in fact
only to highlight the clarity of the core declaration, which is set
forth as follows in the preceding chapter on sacraments in general: . .
. neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or
intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the
Spirit, and the word of institution; which contains . . . a promise of
benefit to worthy receivers (27:3). The 3. Explain how your
view of the efficacy of baptism is consistent with the Westminster
Standards. I believe this
has been answered above (and below). 4. Please address
whether you believe a baptized person who is never excommunicated from
the Church during his lifetime can still be one who is not justified as
described in Westminster Confession, Chapter 11. Yes, it seems to me
this is very possible since excommunication may not always be exercised
consistently or faithfully. Thus, it is very possible for a lifelong
hypocrite or a rebel against God to continue in “good standing” in
the visible church (because of a church’s unwillingness to
excommunicate) and yet at the Last Day be turned away by Christ
(“Depart from Me, I never knew you”). You state that,
“Everyone who has been baptized is a Christian.” (Hospitality, page
99), and “The Bible teaches us that baptism unites us to Christ and
His body by the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13).” (The Federal
Vision, page 55), and “If he has been baptized, he is in covenant with
God and is obligated to walk in faithfulness, loving God with all his
heart, soul, mind, and strength. (The Federal Vision, page 67) How do you
reconcile this with Westminster Confession of Faith 28.5? (“Although
it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and
salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can
be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are
undoubtedly regenerated.”). When I say
“everyone who has been baptized is a Christian,” I am speaking of
the objective covenantal reality — i.e., the one baptized has been
baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and thus
bears the name of the Triune God and has been brought into covenant
union with Christ by the power of the Spirit as Paul says in I Cor.
12:13. Paul doesn’t seem to view this as something true only for some
of the baptised but rather this is true for all (note v. 27 “Now you
are the body of Christ, and members individually.”). As I alluded to
above, it is interesting that in our Directory for the Public Worship of
God we read that the children of believers “are Christians, and
federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized.” What
is meant by this astonishing statement? Is the Directory saying that all
covenant children are “elect” in the Confessional sense? Is it
claiming that they are “effectually called” and thus, have no need
for conversion, for repentance and saving faith? It is saying that they
are already “regenerated,” “justified,” “forgiven,” and will
infallibly persevere to the end? Is this a denial of Paul’s statement
that all by nature are “dead in trespasses and sins”? This is
certainly what we would tend to think if we only allowed the definition
of “Christian” as it is given us in the teaching of the Confession
(regarding the elect, effectual calling, saving faith, etc.) to inform
our reading of this statement. But, clearly, this
would be a terrible misreading of what is intended by this statement. It
seems evident that the writers of the Directory are speaking
covenantally when they call the children of believers “Christians.”
They (and we) mean something like this: “Covenant children are claimed
by God in covenant, His promise to be their God rightly and truly
belongs to them, and they have rightful place among God’s people and a
right to be baptized into the name of the Triune God and to be viewed
and treated as Christians by virtue of their membership in the covenant
community, the visible church which is the body of Christ and the
kingdom, family, and house of God.” I think the writers of the
Directory intend to say very much the same thing that I am trying to set
forth. The difference is we are willing to allow them to speak
covenantally and not read into this statement all that the Confession
teaches regarding the elect. Thus, this claim is not controversial to
anyone when we read it in our Directory for Public Worship. But
ironically, my position which is exactly the same, is viewed as a
departure from the teaching of the Confession. We must ask why this is
so? I don’t mean (and
neither does Paul or the writers of our Directory) that baptism
automatically saves apart from faith in Christ. Baptism joins you to the
visible church which is the house, family, and WCF 28.5 emphasizes
the fact that salvation is not so inseparably connected to baptism that
there can be no salvation apart from it. I agree with this entirely as I
agree that not all who are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated in the
Confessional sense. This is why I believe that the apostasy of the
baptized is a very real possibility. Additional Areas of Questions Related to
the Memorial Are there any views
that you hold which is either an exception to or inconsistent with the
Confession’s teachings on the doctrine of election, the doctrine of
the church, the doctrine of perseverance, the doctrine of assurance, and
the doctrine of baptism. If any, explain. As I have said many
times, I have no exception to the Westminster Confession’s teaching on
any of these points. My concern is not with the Confession’s teaching
but seeking to understand what the Scriptures mean when they appear to
state things contrary to these teachings. Because the Bible plainly
teaches the absolute sovereignty of God over all things (including the
eternal destinies of men), I do not believe there is any inconsistency
between the Scriptures and the Confession at these points. There are,
however, numerous apparent contradictions and I believe they are
explained by the fact that, for the most part, the writers of Scripture
are viewing the work of God in salvation from a covenantal perspective
rather than the decretal perspective of the Confession. As one example, I
have cited Paul and Peter who address entire congregations as “chosen
of God” and “elect” even though they do not know God’s secret
decree. It seems that one explanation of this is that they view members
of the church to be members of the body of Christ (who is the Elect One)
and thus they are able to view and address the members of the church as
“elect” unto salvation and call upon them to persevere in faith and
not be like unfaithful, apostate Israel who fell under God’s judgment
in the wilderness. The Confession, however, restricts the definition of
the “elect” to those who will be saved eternally and does not use
the term to describe members of the visible Church. In spite of this, however, the Confession actually embraces a much broader view of the visible church than is held by some in our day, when it states that the visible Church is “the household, family, and kingdom of God” (WCF 25.2) and is the body of Christ Jesus, outside of which there is ordinarily “no possibility of salvation.” This, it seems to me, does clearly reflect the way the authors of Scripture speak of the visible Church. According to this definition, believers and their children are to be viewed and treated as members of the household, children in God’s family, and citizens of the Kingdom — which seems to be exactly how Paul and the other apostles address members of the church But on the whole
the Confession seems to be mostly concerned with defending and
demonstrating the sovereignty of God in salvation in contrast to the co-operationist
views of the Pelagians and Arminians. The fact that there is no
discussion of apostasy may indicate that the concerns of the Assembly
focused more upon the “decretal” side of salvation than upon a more
covenantal perspective. Given the “environment” of the Confession
and its concerns (which I fully agree with) I have no exceptions to its
teaching regarding election, the church, perseverance, assurance, or
baptism. Having read the
Memorial from The Memorial
exhibits a catastrophic misunderstanding of the position I am seeking to
set forth and asserts that I hold positions which I explicitly deny. The
Memorial ignores the fact that I have repeatedly said that blessings are
not automatically granted because of baptism, but Christ who is offered
with all His benefits in baptism must be embraced with living faith
before one can enjoy the blessings of His Person and work. The Memorial
demonstrates an unwillingness to seek to understand the perspective
which governs the position I’m attempting to set forth. I view the
Memorial as uncharitable as it is unreasonable. Thus, I am forced
to say that the charges leveled by the memorial are false,
ill-considered, and misplaced. I do not disagree with the Confession at
the places alleged by the Presbytery. They are seriously mistaken about
my views and have seriously misread what I have written in drawing their
conclusions. Regarding the
Standing Judicial Report: On page 6 of the
SJC report the assertion is made that Louisiana Presbytery did not
respond to the “specific concerns” raised initially by the Central
Carolina Presbytery. This is untrue. Presbytery appointed a committee
(of three men) to examine me in light of the concerns of CCP. In this
examination, the committee covered all of the concerns raised by CCP
along with a number of other issues not mentioned by the presbytery. In
addition, a number of presbyters contacted me privately with other
specific questions which I attempted to answer. There was no one with
whom I spoke who believed my views were contrary to the doctrinal
standards of our church. The committee was
charged with negligence by the SJC for a number of reasons. First it
stated that “The committee charged with investigating the views of TE
Wilkins kept no minutes and has no transcript, or even a detailed
summary of its examination
of TE Wilkins.” In response it is important to remember that this
examination was done at the REQUEST of two other presbyteries who asked [Further, the fact
is that neither the PCA Book of Church Order nor Robert’s Rules of
Order require committees to keep minutes. Neither is there any
requirement for the committee to present formal minutes to the body
which appointed it. Brief reports, such as the one given by our
committee to presbytery are sufficient and, according to Robert’s
Rules, these reports may even be presented orally.] Second, the SJC
cites as evidence of negligence the fact that there was no “face to
face” examination (“Neither the Committee nor Presbytery held a
face-to-face meeting with TE Wilkins to examine his views”). That is
true but it is not a sign of negligence on our Presbytery’s part. The
examination was done over the phone with the three members of the
committee and me – one member from extreme Southwest Louisiana (Lake
Charles), one member from extreme Southcentral Louisiana (Lafayette),
one member from the extreme Northwest border (Shreveport) and me in the
Northeast corner (Monroe). We all knew each other well and have been
“face to face” many times, but because of the expense and time it
would have taken to travel to a central meeting place, the committee
decided to do it all by phone. This is not out of the ordinary for
committees in our presbytery or in other presbyteries. Again, this was
not a trial (which surely would have been conducted in a formal meeting)
but an examination of my views in response to requests from others. I
don’t believe think anything was lost that could have been gained by a
face to face meeting. For these reasons,
and others that could be cited, I believe the judgment of negligence
against our presbytery is unwarranted and not supported by the facts. |