THE CONTENTS OF OUR TABLE
Bottles broken on the
bar.
This issue is a special collection, giftwrapped and offered up in the hopes of
alleviating ignorance, calming teapots,
and clearing fog.
Take these—clear statements and
responses, introductions, discussion and
haiku—and wander out into the world.
Topic for discussion: Fire vs. Smoke
Machines, differences in a postalpresbyterian metatexture. (Hint: one
involves more plastic.)
Various Visions of Federal
Volume 19, Number 3
A Cautionary Note
Douglas Wilson passes on a word to the folk in his own corner.
“First, it was a wise Puritan who said that the devil loves to fish in
troubled waters.”
4
The Federal Vision (in one easy lesson)
Douglas Wilson takes rookies on a guided tour from the roof of a double-decker bus.
“I was watching my nine-month-old grandson Seamus sitting quietly
on our front lawn yesterday, being covenantally faithful to the best of his
ability. He did not have to earn his position there, and he did not have to
attain to it.”
7
A Joint Federal Vision Profession
A thorough statement collectively embraced by leaders and names associated with FV.
“We therefore ask others to accept that the following represents our
honest convictions at this stage of the conversation. This statement is
therefore not an attempt at evasion or trickery, but simply represents a
desire to be as clear as we can be, given our circumstances.”
9
Against the PCA GA FV Report
(twenty-four variations on a response)
Peter Leithart rumbles.
“FV: You know, for kids.”
14
Can a Nature/Grace Dualism Be Born Again?
Douglas Wilson and gnostic grace.
“If you assume that in the supernatural act of regeneration, God
comes down and implants a grace node in your heart, then this is a
form of gnosticism, and it helps perpetuate that pestilent nature/
grace dualism.”
22
Life in the Regeneration
Douglas Wilson snippets.
“Christ was born again from the dead. Because of this, the whole
created order was born again from the dead. Because of this, Israel was
born again from the dead and is now the Church. Because of this, a man
can be born again and enter the Church. If he was already in the Church,
he can be born again and become a true son of the Church.”
23
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
3
CAUTION
A Cautionary Note
Douglas Wilson
WE have been involved in this round of the controversy over
the “Federal Vision” for about five years now. During that
time, many millions of words have been written, many more
words spoken, friendships strained or broken, churches
divided, and many sins committed—and I am not saying this
because I think the sins have been on one side only.
In the course of this controversy, on the Federal Vision
side of things, I have seen more than a few examples of
intemperate remarks, frayed tempers, and an unhelpful
imputation of evil motives to others. Fortunately, I have also
seen a frequent quickness to repent and a desire to make such
things right. I say this as a participant in the controversy, and,
I suppose, as something of an obvious partisan. Part of the
reason Christians are reluctant to acknowledge any kind of
wrong-doing in the middle of a fight is because “anything you
say can and will be used against you.” Stonewalling is easier
than giving ammo to the adversary.
I don’t want to gut the force of what I want to argue in
this article, so let me limit my “qualifications” about all this to
this introductory section. I write this knowing fully some of the
provocations my brothers have gone through. C. S. Lewis
once wisely said, when comparing the heated rhetoric of
Thomas More and William Tyndale, that it had to be
remembered that Tyndale was the one being persecuted for
his faith. It was not a level playing field. Lewis said something
similar about Bunyan, and I believe there is a similar asymmetry in this situation. Exasperated rhetoric in self-defense is a
very different sin than slander and accusation from one in
authority or a doctrinal bounty-hunter out to make a name for
himself.
That said, a common question raised by critics of the
Federal Vision is this—“Why don’t you guys admit any
legitimate point that your critics might bring up? Why won’t
you disavow ‘something outrageous’ that Schlissel or Lusk
said?” The answers to this kind of question have been
addressed in different settings already, but I want to mention
them again here. The first is a Golden Rule issue. I have been
misrepresented by FV critics time without number, and
because I don’t want Schlissel or Lusk disavowing me for
things I don’t really believe, I have no intention of doing it to
them. And FV critics have not been reliable in handling what I
have said, so why should I take them as reliable when they
decide to give my friends the treatment? Second, in a
scriptural understanding of justice, the burden of proof is on
the accuser. I don’t have to prove my innocence or the
innocence of my friends. If any one of them were convicted by
a court of the church, I would then have the burden of looking
4
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3
at what evidence was used, how they responded to it, and so
on. But that hasn’t happened yet. And third, the Scriptures
teach us that in a doctrinal controversy, it is important to
discern why a question is being asked. Some people asked
Jesus questions because they were not far from the kingdom,
and others did it because they were trying to trap Him.
So my loyalties to my friends and fellow laborers in this
reformational ministry have not budged, nor will they. But I
do want to urge my fellows in the FV trenches to take heed
with regard to the following things. I have seen issues that
concern me, and so I want to caution against them. Some of
this I have already addressed in private conversations, and all
of it needs to be said in public. None of it falls in the category
of assuming sin in the ranks of those whom I address, and I
am making no particular accusations. It is just that I know
what I would do if I were the devil. How would I tempt?
How would I try to exploit this most unfortunate division in
the Reformed world? Scripture says that we are to exhort one
another daily, so that we are not hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. That is all this article is—provoking to love and good
works (Heb. 10:24). Now in mentioning good works as I
have just done, perhaps it would be prudent if I hastened to
add that we are not justified by them.
First, it was a wise Puritan who said that the devil loves to
fish in troubled waters. So the first thing that is necessary here
is to guard the heart. In doctrinal controversy, it is the easiest
thing in the world to believe that the “stakes” are this doctrine
or that one. But a lot more than that is always going on. We
can establish the right doctrine the right way, the right
doctrine the wrong way, the wrong doctrine the right way, or,
for the most popular option, the wrong doctrine in the wrong
way. When two positions collide, we must always remember
that there is a deeper right than being right.
The second problem is taking the poor caliber of much of
the public criticism we have received as representative of the
whole. There are critics who don’t have the faintest idea of
what we (or they) are talking about, and their ignorance is
culpable. Men who are vocational theologians should be able
to master these distinctions—that is what they are being paid
to do. But this is not the case across the board. Some critics
are reasonable men and women, who do not have any
particular ax to grind, but are puzzled or concerned about
some of the stuff they are hearing. And I am not speaking of
those who hear rumors second or third hand. Rank-and-file
believers who think that I have puppy sandwiches every day
for lunch because they read all about it on the Internet are also
culpable. Rather I am talking about folks who are hearing a
different vocabulary than what they are accustomed to, and
when this happens, they have a duty to Christ in this—they
CAUTION
are supposed to be wary and suspicious. We don’t want to
produce the FV equivalent of the Calvinist “cage stage.”
When someone first learns the doctrines of grace, they need
to be locked in a cage for three years, and kept out of all
conversations with Arminians. This is because the
Arminianism that they believed for thirty years is now irrefutable proof that the Arminian they are currently talking to is an
idiot. There are all kinds of reasonable questions and concerns, and we desperately need to remember that. I cannot
come to certain conclusions over the course of ten years, and
then demand that others do it in ten minutes.
The third issue can be illustrated by adapting something
from Hegel’s playbook. His take on history was that a thesis
would provoke an antithesis. The two of them would meet,
make a little love, and we would soon have ourselves a little
synthesis. This synthesis would become a new thesis, and the
process would repeat. Now as a master explanation of history,
this is lacking in all kinds of ways, and among other bad things
brought us the carnage of communism. But it does explain
some things, at least for purposes of illustration. One of them is
this: it is perilously easy for people who are in the midst of a
reaction (antithesis) to a particular status quo (the thesis) to
think that the thesis has always “just been there,” like the
everlasting rocks. But there was a time, not that long ago,
when these moribund expressions of doctrine that we find
inadequate now were once new, fresh, and exciting. And they
did not just seem that way, as though doctrinal shifts are
nothing more than a rearrangement of the furniture. These
were honest answers, and they were like a kiss on the lips.
Banner-of-Truth Calvinism seems stuck in a bad rut now, but
there was a time in my life when tumbling into their literature
was like busting out into the Narnian snow dance. And the
ossified and formulaic expressions of evangelicalism that we
struggle with now were, at one time, the words that brought
Europe back from the dead. Now some people are not
interested in the power of religion, but rather in the form of it.
They want to be curators of the museum, with an inspiring
exhibit on justification by faith alone, three feet behind the
velvet rope, there behind the glass. Others hold to the old
doctrines in truth, don’t want to give any of that up, and of
course they shouldn’t. We shouldn’t act like we are asking
them to, because we aren’t doing that either.
The next four concerns are particular issues with young
men who have been attracted to the FV for various reasons.
There is quite a difference between them and a man who has
had a pilgrimage over decades through the zaniness of
contemporary faith in America. He has done his time as a
charismatic, then as a Baptist, then as a theonomic Reformed
Baptist, then as a Presbyterian. He has a lot of wisdom, a lot
of dents in his helmet, and one of the horns is knocked off. He
then comes to the FV conversation, and he sees a number of
questions addressed and answered that had been bugging him
for thirty years, and he accepts the FV approach to these
questions with gratitude and caution. Compare this to a young
man who comes to this whole thing fresh off the boat. He
embraces it enthusiastically, because his soil is thin and he has
no root. After six months in the FV conversation, he popes.
After a few months there, he decides that all the modern
popes are heretics, becomes a sedevacantist, and becomes a
true “Roman Catholic” rigorist. His congregation has a
membership of three, four when their wife has their second
kid. It’s kind of like that old Protestant sectarianism, only with
Latin names for stuff. This is another way of saying that I trust
experienced FV men who have paid their dues, and I am wary
of young FV men who look like the dues that someone else is
going to have to pay.
A fifth temptation occurs when you are falsely accused of
theft; it is sometimes a temptation to go off and steal something. When slanders of “not Reformed,” or “heretic” fly, it
is easy for some to just embrace the accusation, and say
something like, “Yeah, what about it? I never cared that much
about being Reformed anyway. I just want to be biblical.”
This is because the time they have been Reformed can be
measured in weeks—there is not all that much invested in it.
When coupled with the first temptation mentioned here—
that of getting your attitude cranked—it is easy to go off and
embrace what the FV men are falsely accused of embracing.
The FV community has had a few of these young men, who
thought they were being a vanguard when all they were being
was a grief and a trouble.
Temptation number six is not limited to young men, but
it is more prevalent there. The clash between FV and its
critics is often cast as a collision between “systematic”
theology and “biblical” theology. There is a serious point
here, and I do not want to dismiss it. But I also want to urge
care, because it is not that simple. Systematic theology, like
liturgy, is inescapable. Everyone has a systematic theology,
whether they write it down in three volumes or not. The only
difference is the nature of the system. And biblical theology,
done right, is magnificent. But it is kind of like vers libre—in
the hands of a master, it can be overwhelming and glorious. In
the hands of an anxiety-ridden junior-high girl, it can be
terrible.
There is a temptation in FV circles, in an understandable
reaction to how some of our critics have been leaving baskets
of fruit in front of the confessions, to pit knowledge of the
Bible against knowledge of the Reformed confessions. It is
assumed that there is an inverse relationship between them—
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
5
CAUTION
the better you know your confession, the less likely it is that
you will know your Bible. But this is exactly the opposite of
what I have found in instructing young people. If someone has
memorized their Shorter Catechism, or the Heidelberg, and
we test them on their knowledge of the Bible—simple biblical
grammar questions like “Who lived first, David or
Abraham?”—the catechized kids will generally do far better.
Those who say that knowledge of the Bible is “far more
important” than knowledge of the confessions are less likely to
know their Bible very well. It is kind of like comparing those
who tithe with those who believe that they should “give out of
love and as the Spirit leads,” with the Spirit always leading
somewhere between one and two percent. There is no necessary
contradiction between knowledge of the Reformed tradition
and knowledge of the Bible. Those who make an idol out of
the confessions are a walking contradiction—but it is a
contradiction between knowledge of the Bible and knowledge
of their idolatry.
This could go on for a while, but let me conclude with
one last concern. This is related to some of the previous
concerns, but it also bears mentioning in its own right. One of
the great fears of FV critics is the fear of nominalism. One of
the great pastoral fears of the FV men is the fear of beating
the saints up in the name of getting them to examine the inner
recesses of their hearts. In other words, some people are so
tired of being badgered every week to “search their hearts”
that they are desperate for some gospel rest. The FV offers
that, and it offers it as the glorious gospel of grace. And what
happens when you preach grace? Those in need of it come
and their thirst is quenched. But there is another kind of
person who comes also—and the apostle Paul even had to
deal with this kind of character. Paul preached grace, and he
was falsely accused of preaching license. Some people rejected
Paul for that reason, and others, sharing the same misunderstanding, thought he was hot stuff.
I believe that liturgy is God-given and inescapable. I am
as enthusiastic as a man can be about the potency of covenant
renewal worship. But I also know there is a certain kind of
person attracted to this for all the wrong reasons, and they are
attracted to it precisely because it gives them a place of
religious respectability where they can hide from God. This
temptation is mentioned throughout the Bible, and FV critics
warn us in dire terms of the nominalism that will result if the
measures we suggest are adopted by the Church. Well, sure it
will happen. When you sow the seed, birds eat some of it.
When you sow the seed, thorns and weeds choke out some of
it. Let God be true, and every man a liar. If you enroll in a
math class, the first thing you will encounter is math problems. That is not an argument against taking the class. But it is
6
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3
an argument for being prepared to solve the problems. It is
not an answer to the FV critic to insist on enrolling in the
class, and then refusing to do the problems.
So FV pastors need to be sensitive to this, and when we
are warned about it (by people we believe are exaggerating the
issues), we need to acknowledge that this is a temptation that
the Bible hammers on over the course of millennia. Away with
the noise of your songs, and get your homosexual chancel
prancers the hell out of here. Who required of you this
trampling of my courts? I have seen more than one moth
flying toward the FV candle for all the wrong reasons. There
are some folks who like the externals offered in FV worship
because their internals are such a mess.
There is a pastoral awareness of this kind of temptation
(I call it “sunny and affectionate cynicism”) that is really most
necessary. When FV pastors are ministering to those who
have been genuinely beat up by “soul-searching preaching”—
a thirteen part series on the sin of coveting your neighbor’s
new snow shovel—the temptation is to think that all refugees
from that kind of thing must be genuine. But there are plenty
of people in the world who could benefit from any kind of
soul-searching preaching, including a Larger Catechism
approach to the snow shovel problem. They will flee from any
kind of preaching that gets at their innards, and they will
gravitate to worship services where someone important gets
to walk around dressed up like Saruman. In my mind, this is
not an argument against liturgical worship at all. But it is an
argument against liturgical worship presided over by pastoral
naïfs.
Pastoral wisdom cannot be universally critical or universally accepting. People are different. The cure of souls cannot
take a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Affectionate cynicism is in
order. One time when my grandson Rory was about two years
old, the adults were sitting around in the living room after
Sabbath dinner. We were having a good time visiting with
guests, and in that setting, Rory came barreling out into the
living room and announced to his father Nate, “I love Jesus.”
The same suspicious thought came into my mind and into his
father’s mind at right about the same moment. The guests
were saying awwhhh while Nate headed off to the back of the
house to see what his son had broken. It turned out in that
case that nothing had been broken, and that Rory really did
love Jesus.
And so should we all.
DOCTRINE 101
The Federal Vision
(in one easy lesson)
Douglas Wilson
LET’S START with the name, and the fact of the name. The
Federal Vision was the title of a pastors’ conference in January of
2002 at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe,
Louisiana. This is why the controversy is also called by the
name of Auburn Avenue. This happened because conferences
need to have titles, and not because there was a desire on the
part of the participants to create yet another faction within the
Church. When controversy arose the following summer over
what had been said at the conference, the name of the
conference stuck as a label for the points being made.
What does the phrase Federal Vision mean, then? The
word federal comes from the Latin word foedus, which means
covenant. Vision obviously refers to seeing, and perhaps to
seeing on a grand scale, and so the Federal Vision wants to
urge believers to see the world through covenantal eyes. The
Federal Vision expresses a desire for a more rigorously
consistent covenantal theology. In this respect, the Federal
Vision is an answer to prayer, God’s gracious fulfillment of a
promise He has made to those who fear Him. “The secret of
the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them
his covenant” (Ps. 25:14). There is one important thing we
must carry away from this passage, and that is that the covenant
needs to be shown to us by God. It is not something we can attain to
by our own effort—it is all the sheer grace of God.
So what do we claim to see in our “vision” of the
covenant? And why has it caused all this commotion? It would
perhaps be more helpful to point out what we don’t see there.
What we don’t see in God’s covenantal dealings is the idea of
merit. One tradition in the Reformed world has seen Adam
failing to merit the blessed state after his probationary testing
was over. We believe that Adam was given his blessed
surroundings gratis, and, had he continued in that blessed
condition, that too would have been the ongoing grace of
God. We believe that Adam by his disobedience forfeited
what God had promised him, and his continuance in his
fellowship with God was certainly conditioned upon his
ongoing obedience. But we don’t believe that Adam was
charged to earn anything.
Grace has a backbone, and there are conditions that are
attached to the grace of God. Grace does not cease to be
grace simply because we are charged not to despise it. We see
the justice and law of God as contained within His gracious
character, and as fully consistent with it. His holiness is the
sum total of all His attributes, and so when Adam abused the
gifts that God had given to him, it was certainly appropriate
for the wrath and displeasure of God to be made manifest in
the history of the world since that time. But justice is not the
context of God’s favor; God’s favor and grace are the context
of His justice.
If Adam had obeyed God in the Garden, that obedience
would itself have been a gift from God—all things are from
His hand. Had Adam passed that probationary period of
testing, the only appropriate response for him would have
been to turn to God and give thanks for his deliverance. This
being the case, it cannot be that Adam would have been able
to operate as an autonomous agent, laying a claim of raw
justice against God. Adam could not have said, “God, I owe
You no thanks for this achievement at all. I did this all by
myself, but I do thank You for the opportunity You provided
to me to demonstrate what I could do without Your help.” In
short, we reject the idea that Adam could have functioned
autonomously and obediently. All attempted autonomy on the
part of creatures is always sinful. Adam could eat the fruit
autonomously, but he could not refrain from eating it
obediently in an autonomous fashion.
That’s it? Is that that nub of the matter between the
Federal Vision and its critics? Yes, that’s it. There are other
issues, certainly, but they all flow, one way or another, out of
this one. If you believe that Adam was “on his own” as he
tried to navigate the difficult task of staying away from the
tree in the middle of the Garden, then you are a critic of the
Federal Vision. If you believe that Adam should have obeyed
God by continuing to trust and rest in Him, and that striking
out “on his own” is what got us into all this trouble, then in
principle you are in sympathy with the Federal Vision.
I said that the other issues flow out of this one. Let me
take a couple of samples to try to show how this is the case. If
you assume that grace and favor is the default position that
God has, then we as imitators of our God will do the same.
When children are born into our covenant homes, we will
tend to believe that they are accepted and beloved, without
them having to earn anything, without them having “to prove
it.” I was watching my nine-month-old grandson Seamus
sitting quietly on our front lawn yesterday, being covenantally
faithful to the best of his ability. He did not have to earn his
position there, and he did not have to attain to it. No climbing
was involved. He did not have to work for it—it was just a
gift. We baptized him without his permission, and he will be
brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Now
he will have to continue in this grace, and he will be repeatedly
charged throughout the course of his life not to rebel against
it. But he is accepted already. He was born accepted, just like
Adam was created accepted. This is why there is no covenantal barrier between Seamus and the Lord’s Table. So
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
7
DOCTRINE 101
paedocommunionists are replicating in their homes and
churches the same attitude that they believe God took with
our first parents in the Garden. Sheer gift, and all glory to
God. We may not throw away the gift, but holding on to a gift
by faith is not the same thing as earning it.
And those who do not believe in paedocommunion are
requiring their children to replicate in their lives the pattern
that they believe was in the Garden at the first. God’s grace
gives the opportunity to follow Him, but you are not enrolled
as one of those followers until you pass a test.
Let’s take another example—the charge that the Federal
Vision overemphasizes the sacraments, making too much out
of them. How does this root difference of views about the Fall
of our first parents in the Garden affect our view of the
sacraments now? It is the same kind of thing that we saw with
paedocommunion. Our assumption is that the sacraments are
signs and seals of God’s grace, indications of His standing favor.
We should therefore come to them with gladness, and we
should come frequently. God is being good to us in the
sacraments. We promote weekly communion, for example,
for this reason.
Now we know that people can and do abuse the grace
that God offers in the sacraments. We do not believe that they
automatically save anyone, apart from evangelical repentance
and faith. Of course not. But this does not move us from our
default assumption of fundamental grace. Grace abused is
terrible judgment indeed, but we never want to forget that the
fall was a fall from grace. The starting point is always grace.
The position that the Federal Vision is resisting is the
default assumption that we are always in trouble. We should
come to the Lord’s Table in faith, confident that we are
accepted in the Beloved. We should not come to the Table
expecting to be yelled at. If we approach the sacraments as
though they were a lit stick of dynamite, we have a faulty view
of God. Indeed, we have a faulty view of His holiness. Of
course, as said earlier, grace has a backbone. A man in the
midst of an adulterous affair who is coming to the Table
should be fearful. The man who abuses God’s grace with a
high hand should not confuse that grace with senile indulgence. Our God is a consuming fire. But He is not a consuming fire for those who approach the throne of grace with
boldness.
Getting the merit question straight also helps understand
the debates and discussions over sola fide. If we are justified by
faith alone, and we are, then what role do our good works play?
As seen elsewhere in this issue, there is some discussion and
disagreement on this point among the Federal Vision
proponents themselves. But whatever that relation, it needs to
be remembered that in the Federal Vision there is a universal
hostility toward meritorious good works. If we uniformly deny
that the unfallen Adam could have merited his reward, how
would it be possible for any of us to think that a forgiven
sinner could merit anything?
One last caveat. The Federal Vision does represent a
different way of working through some basic theological
problems in the modern Reformed tradition. At the same time,
there are no fundamental innovations here—these positions
represent a current in the Reformed river that has been
present from Calvin down to the present. Some of the
vocabulary is different from what twenty-first century
Calvinists are used to, and, as I have shown, one of the
fundamental assumptions we have does collide with another
tradition within the Reformed ranks. But the notion that this
represents a stream of thought entirely outside the Reformed
faith is risible. All the FV representatives that I know are fivepoint Calvinists, they all believe in the absolute predestination
of God, and they all believe that we are justified by faith from
first to last.
cherry blossom spins
dropping charges, elusive,
brave debate partner
Nathan Wilson
8
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3
STATEMENT
A Joint Federal Vision Profession:
Greetings in the Lord.
MANY of us who have signed this statement are also
confessionally bound to the Three Forms of Unity or to the
Westminster Confession of Faith. The following brief
statement therefore should be understood as being in
harmony with those other confessional commitments, a
supplement to them, and not an example of generating
another system of doctrine. In any place where statements
here would constitute an exception to whatever confessional
standards we are under, they are exceptions that have been
noted and approved by our respective presbyteries or classes.
We have sought to maintain an eagerness to submit our
teaching to our respective presbyteries for their evaluation,
and see this statement as consistent with that desire.
In addition, in the books, articles, and websites that are
part of the broader Federal Vision discussion, there are many
issues being discussed and distinctive positions held that are
not addressed below. We have limited ourselves here to those
issues that have been a significant part of recent controversy,
or which, in our view, have silently contributed to it.
This statement represents the views of those who drafted
it, contributed to it, and signed it. It should not be taken as a
confessional statement by any ecclesiastical assembly or body,
particularly the CREC. There are things stated here which do
not represent the views of the CREC as a whole, or of certain
CREC ministers in particular. The CREC is not an FV
denomination, but is rather a confederation which welcomes
convictions like these as being “within the Reformed pale.”
This statement therefore represents the views of the CREC
men who signed it, and it represents what CREC men who
could not sign it believe to be within the realm of acceptable
differences. It should further be noted that not all the
signatures are from the CREC.
On the other side, there are many people who should be
considered as full and friendly participants in the Federal
Vision “conversation” who cannot sign this statement (even
though they might want to) because of one or two issues—
paedocommunion, say, or postmillennialism. This statement
is not drawing the borders of our fellowship, and it certainly
does not represent any club from which we are trying to
exclude people.
We offer this statement in good faith, and we pray that it
will do some good in promoting unity in the broader Church.
At the same time, we recognize that some of our differences
with our brothers in Christ are “sub-systematic” and may not
be obvious on the surface, on the level of systematic theol-
ogy—what one writer described as looking like the “same
theology, different religion.”
We have no desire to present a “moving target,” but we
do want to be teachable, willing to stand corrected, or to
refine our formulations as critics point out ambiguities,
confusions, or errors. We therefore ask others to accept that
the following represents our honest convictions at this stage of
the conversation. This statement is therefore not an attempt at
evasion or trickery, but simply represents a desire to be as
clear as we can be, given our circumstances.
Our Triune God
We affirm that the triune God is the archetype of all covenantal
relations. All faithful theology and life is conducted in union
with and imitation of the way God eternally is, and so we seek
to understand all that the Bible teaches—on covenant, on law,
on gospel, on predestination, on sacraments, on the Church—
in the light of an explicit Trinitarian understanding.
We deny that a mere formal adherence to the doctrine of the
Trinity is sufficient to keep the very common polytheistic and
unitarian temptations of unbelieving thought at bay.
As the Waters Cover the Sea
We affirm that God did not send His Son into the world to
condemn the world, but rather so that the world through Him
would be saved. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who takes
away the sin of the world—He is the Savior of the world. All
the nations shall stream to Him, and His resting place shall be
glorious. We affirm that prior to the second coming of our
Lord Jesus, the earth will be as full of the knowledge of the
Lord as the waters cover the sea.
We deny that eschatological views are to be a test of fellowship
between orthodox believers, but at the same time we hold that
an orientation of faith with regard to the gospel’s triumph in
history is extremely important. We deny that it is wise to imitate
Abraham in his exercise of faith while declining to believe the
content of what he believed—that through him all the nations of
the world would be blessed, and that his descendants would
be like the stars in number.
The Next Christendom
We affirm that Jesus Christ is the King of kings, and the Lord
of lords. We believe that the Church cannot be a faithful
witness to His authority without calling all nations to submit
themselves to Him through baptism, accepting their responsibility to obediently learn all that He has commanded us. We
affirm therefore that the Christian faith is a public faith,
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
9
STATEMENT
encompassing every realm of human endeavor. The fulfillment of the Great Commission therefore requires the
establishment of a global Christendom.
confessional and/or scholastic use of words and phrases over
the way the same words and phrases are used in the Bible
itself.
We deny that neutrality is possible in any realm, and this
includes the realm of “secular” politics. We believe that the
lordship of Jesus Christ has authoritative ramifications for
every aspect of human existence, and that growth up into a
godly maturity requires us to discover what those ramifications are in order to implement them. Jesus Christ has
established a new way of being human, and it is our responsibility to grow up into it.
Creeds and Confessions
Scripture Cannot Be Broken
We affirm that the Bible in its entirety, from Genesis to
Revelation, is the infallible Word of God, and is our only
ultimate rule for faith and practice. Scripture alone is the
infallible and ultimate standard for Christians. We affirm
further that Scripture is to be our guide in learning how to
interpret Scripture, and this means we must imitate the
apostolic handling of the Old Testament, paying close
attention to language, syntax, context, narrative flow, literary
styles, and typology—all of it integrated in Jesus Christ
Himself.
We deny that the Bible can be rightly understood by any
hermeneutical grid not derived from the Scriptures themselves.
The Proclamation of the Word
We affirm that God’s Spirit has chosen the best ways to express
the revelation of God and reality, and that the divine rhetoric
found in Holy Scripture is designed to strike the richest of all
chords in the hearers of the Word of God. For this reason, we
believe that it is pastorally best to use biblical language and
phrasing in the preaching and teaching of the Bible in the
Church.
We deny that it is necessarily unprofitable to “translate” biblical
language into more “philosophical” or “scholastic” languages
in order to deal with certain problems and issues that arise in
the history of the Church. At the same time, we do deny that
such translations are superior to or equal to the rhetoric
employed by the Spirit in the text, and we believe that the
employment of such hyper-specialized terminology in the
regular teaching and preaching of the Church has the
unfortunate effect of confusing the saints and of estranging
them from contact with the biblical use of the same language.
For this reason we reject the tendency to privilege the
10
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3
We affirm that all who subscribe to creeds and confessions
should do so with a clean conscience and honest interpretation, in accordance with the plain meaning of words and the
original intent of the authors, as can best be determined.
We deny that confessional commitments in any way require us
to avoid using the categories and terms of Scripture, even
when the confessional use of such words is necessarily more
narrow and circumscribed. We deny that creedal or systematic
understandings of scriptural truth can ever be given a place of
parity with Scripture, or primacy over Scripture. In line with
this, we continue to honor and hold to the creeds of the
ancient Church and the confessions of the Reformational
Church.
The Divine Decrees
We affirm that the triune God is exhaustively sovereign over all
things, working out all things according to the counsel of His
will. Because this necessarily includes our redemption in
Christ, God alone receives all the glory for our salvation.
Before all worlds, God the Father chose a great host of those
who would be saved, and the number of those so chosen
cannot be increased or diminished. In due time, Jesus of
Nazareth died on the cross, and in that sacrifice He secured
the salvation of all those chosen for salvation by the Father.
And at some time in the earthly life of each person so chosen,
the Holy Spirit brings that person to life, and enables him to
persevere in holiness to the end. Those covenant members
who are not elect in the decretal sense enjoy the common
operations of the Spirit in varying degrees, but not in the same
way that those who are elect do.
We deny that the unchangeable nature of these decrees prevents
us from using the same language in covenantal ways as we
describe our salvation from within that covenant. We further
deny this covenantal usage is “pretend” language, even where
the language and terminology sometimes overlap with the
language of the decrees. The secret things belong to the Lord
our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our
children, that we may keep the words of this law. We affirm
the reality of the decrees, but deny that the decrees “trump”
the covenant. We do not set them against each other, but
expect them to harmonize perfectly as God works out all
things in accordance with His will.
STATEMENT
The Church
We affirm that membership in the one true Christian Church is
visible and objective, and is the possession of everyone who
has been baptized in the triune name and who has not been
excommunicated by a lawful disciplinary action of the Church.
We affirm one holy, catholic, and apostolic church, the house
and family of God, outside of which there is no ordinary
possibility of salvation. In establishing the Church, God has
fulfilled His promise to Abraham and established the
Regeneration of all things. God has established this Regeneration through Christ—in Him we have the renewal of life in
the fulness of life in the new age of the kingdom of God.
We deny that membership in the Christian Church in history is
an infallible indicator or guarantee of final salvation. Those
who are faithless to their baptismal obligations incur a stricter
judgment because of it.
The Visible and Invisible Church
We affirm that there is only one true Church, and that this
Church can legitimately be considered under various descriptions, including the aspects of visible and invisible. We further
affirm that the visible Church is the true Church of Christ, and
not an “approximate” Church.
We deny that such a distinction excludes other helpful distinctions, such as the historical church and eschatological church.
The historical Church generally corresponds to the visible
Church—all those who profess the true religion, together with
their children—and the eschatological Church should be
understood as the full number of God’s chosen as they will be
seen on the day of resurrection.
Reformed Catholicity
We affirm that justification is through faith in Jesus Christ, and
not through works of the law, whether those works were
revealed to us by God, or manufactured by man. Because we
are justified through faith in Jesus alone, we believe that we
have an obligation to be in fellowship with everyone that God
has received into fellowship with Himself.
We deny that correct formulations of the doctrine of sola fide can
be substituted for genuine faith in Jesus, or that such correct
formulations can be taken as infallible indicators of a true faith
in Jesus.
The Covenant of Life
We affirm that Adam was in a covenant of life with the triune
God in the Garden of Eden, in which arrangement Adam was
required to obey God completely, from the heart. We hold
further that all such obedience, had it occurred, would have
been rendered from a heart of faith alone, in a spirit of loving
trust. Adam was created to progress from immature glory to
mature glory, but that glorification too would have been a gift
of grace, received by faith alone.
We deny that continuance in this covenant in the Garden was in
any way a payment for work rendered. Adam could forfeit or
demerit the gift of glorification by disobedience, but the gift
or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to
Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements. In line with this, we affirm that until the expulsion
from the Garden, Adam was free to eat from the tree of life.
We deny that Adam had to earn or merit righteousness, life,
glorification, or anything else.
The Sacrament of Baptism
We affirm that God formally unites a person to Christ and to
His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name,
and that this baptism obligates such a one to lifelong covenant
loyalty to the triune God, each baptized person repenting of
his sins and trusting in Christ alone for his salvation. Baptism
formally engrafts a person into the Church, which means that
baptism is into the Regeneration, that time when the Son of
Man sits upon His glorious throne (Matt. 19:28).
We deny that baptism automatically guarantees that the
baptized will share in the eschatological Church. We deny the
common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration—i.e.
that an “effectual call” or rebirth is automatically wrought in
the one baptized. Baptism apart from a growing and living
faith is not saving, but rather damning. But we deny that
trusting God’s promise through baptism elevates baptism to a
human work. God gives baptism as assurance of His grace to
us personally, as our names are spoken when we are baptized.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper
We affirm that by faithful use of the humble but glorious
elements of bread and wine (remaining such), we are being
grown up into a perfect unity with our Head, the Lord Jesus.
Unless there has been lawful disciplinary action by the
Church, we affirm that any baptized person, children included,
should be welcome at the Table.
We deny that the Supper is merely symbolic, but we also deny
that any metaphysical changes are wrought in the bread or
wine. We believe in the real presence of Christ with His
people in the Supper, but we deny the local presence of Christ
in the elements.
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
11
STATEMENT
Union with Christ and Imputation
We affirm Christ is all in all for us, and that His perfect sinless
life, His suffering on the cross, and His glorious resurrection
are all credited to us. Christ is the new Adam, obeying God
where the first Adam did not obey God. And Christ as the
new Israel was baptized as the old Israel was, was tempted for
40 days as Israel was for 40 years, and as the greater Joshua
He conquered the land of Canaan in the course of His
ministry. This means that through Jesus, on our behalf, Israel
has finally obeyed God and has been accepted by Him. We
affirm not only that Christ is our full obedience, but also that
through our union with Him we partake of the benefits of His
death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement at the
right hand of God the Father.
We deny that faithfulness to the gospel message requires any
particular doctrinal formulation of the “imputation of the
active obedience of Christ.” What matters is that we confess
that our salvation is all of Christ, and not from us.
Law and Gospel
We affirm that those in rebellion against God are condemned
both by His law, which they disobey, and His gospel, which
they also disobey. When they have been brought to the point
of repentance by the Holy Spirit, we affirm that the gracious
nature of all God’s words becomes evident to them. At the
same time, we affirm that it is appropriate to speak of law and
gospel as having a redemptive and historical thrust, with the
time of the law being the old covenant era and the time of the
gospel being the time when we enter our maturity as God’s
people. We further affirm that those who are first coming to
faith in Christ frequently experience the law as an adversary
and the gospel as deliverance from that adversary, meaning
that traditional evangelistic applications of law and gospel are
certainly scriptural and appropriate.
We deny that law and gospel should be considered as hermeneutics, or treated as such. We believe that any passage,
whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful
as good news, and that any passage, whether containing
gospel promises or not, will be heard by the rebellious as
intolerable demand. The fundamental division is not in the
text, but rather in the human heart.
Justification by Faith Alone
We affirm we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone.
Faith alone is the hand which is given to us by God so that we
may receive the offered grace of God. Justification is God’s
forensic declaration that we are counted as righteous, with our
sins forgiven, for the sake of Jesus Christ alone.
12
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3
We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of
faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active, and
personally loyal faith. Justifying faith encompasses the
elements of assent, knowledge, and living trust in accordance
with the age and maturity of the believer. We deny that faith is
ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call.
Assurance of Salvation
We affirm that those who have been justified by God’s grace
through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are saved
to the uttermost and will spend eternity with Christ and his
saints in glory forever. We affirm also that though salvation is
granted through the instrument of faith alone, those who have
been justified will live progressively more and more sanctified
lives until they go to be with God. Those believers for whom
this is true look to Christ for their assurance—in the Word, in
the sacraments, in their fellow believers, and in their own
participation in that life by faith.
We deny that anyone who claims to have faith but who lives in
open rebellion against God and against his Christ has any
reason to believe that he will be saved on the last day.
Apostasy
We affirm that apostasy is a terrifying reality for many baptized
Christians. All who are baptized into the triune Name are
united with Christ in His covenantal life, and so those who fall
from that position of grace are indeed falling from grace. The
branches that are cut away from Christ are genuinely cut away
from someone, cut out of a living covenant body. The
connection that an apostate had to Christ was not merely
external.
We deny that any person who is chosen by God for final
salvation before the foundation of the world can fall away and
be finally lost. The decretally elect cannot apostatize.
Some Points of Intramural Disagreement
The “Federal Vision” is not a monolithic movement. It has
been variously described as a conversation, a broad school of
thought, a series of similar questions, and so on. As the
statements above would indicate, there are a number of
common themes held by those who signed this statement.
But there are also important areas of disagreement or
ongoing discussion among those who are identified as
“Federal Vision” advocates. Some of these areas would
include, but not be limited to, whether or not the imputation
of the active obedience of Christ (as traditionally understood)
is to be affirmed in its classic form. Some of us affirm this and
some do not. Another difference is whether or not personal
STATEMENT
regeneration represents a change of nature in the person so
regenerated. Some of us say yes while others question whether
we actually have such an “essence” that can be changed. All of
us would affirm that we should have a high view of covenant
renewal liturgy, but this does not necessarily mean that we all
agree on how “high” the liturgy should actually be. Some of us
are comfortable using the language of justification to describe
the “deliverdict” of the last day, while others would prefer to
describe it in other ways. That said, we are all agreed that no
one is justified at any time because they personally have earned
or merited anything. Some of us robustly affirm Christ's
unique merit in His person and work as the answer to our
demerit. Others think there are better words to describe the
value and worthiness of Christ’s sacrifice without recourse to
the term “merit” because it is not biblical language, and its use
both in the history of the church and currently shows that it
can cause confusion.
Any doctrine mentioned in the previous sections can be
fairly represented as part of the Federal Vision. Issues in this
last section cannot be fairly represented as the view of the
whole. Our prayer is that this statement will help to bring
clarity to a subject that been confused because of the noise of
controversy. “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace . . .” (Eph. 4:3).
John Barach (minister, CREC)
Randy Booth (minister, CREC)
Tim Gallant (minister, CREC)
Mark Horne (minister, PCA)
Jim Jordan (minister, teacher at large)
Peter Leithart (minister, PCA)
Rich Lusk (minister, CREC)
Jeff Meyers (minister, PCA)
Ralph Smith (minister, CREC)
Steve Wilkins (minister, PCA)
Douglas Wilson (minister, CREC)
Ministerial Conference 2007
Online Registration: www.christkirk.com/ministerial
Against Christianity: The Church as Politics
October 17-19
University Inn/Best Western, Moscow, Idaho
Call Chris LaMoreaux at the church office for further
details - 208-882-2034.
Topics include:
From Cain to the Consummation, Peter Leithart
Assuming the Center, Doug Wilson
Which Tribal Religion is the Republican Party? Doug Jones
The Time of the Church, Peter Leithart
Outside in, Inside out, Peter Leithart
A Trinitarian Reading of the Cold War, Doug Jones
The Centrality of Story in Politics, Doug Wilson
How Can Small Churches Make Richer, Deeper Communities? Doug Jones
The Festive Center, Peter Leithart
Worship Is Warfare, Doug Wilson
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
13
CONTRA
Against the PCA GA FV Report
(twenty-four variations
on a response)
Peter Leithart
1
IT’S LONG BEEN A FRUSTRATION that there is no forum for
theological discussion and debate in the Presbyterian Church
in America (PCA). Presbyteries sometimes devote time to
such discussion, but that’s too rare. And General Assembly
(GA) is simply not a place where theological debate can be
expected to happen.
The General Assembly debate on the Federal Vision
(FV) was a case in point. Nearly two hours were devoted to
the committee report, but virtually no theological claims were
made or disputed. The Assembly quickly determined that
justification by faith was the issue, on the assumption that
some in the PCA are denying it (which is not true). Once the
debate went in that direction, the outcome was predetermined, as we Calvinists like to say. We all know what we think
about justification by faith; we in fact know all that needs to be
known; no need to discuss; let’s vote.
2
The emperor invited Luther to speak for himself at the Diet
of Worms. By that time, the Pope had already had a stack of
Luther’s writings, enough to detect forty-one errors he wanted
Luther to retract. Eck knew full well what Luther had written;
he had a table full of books at the Diet itself. The Diet met to
demand that Luther retract. But the Diet summoned Luther,
personally.
For reasons that Committee Chairman Paul Fowler’s
convoluted explanation certainly did not clarify, the PCA study
committee on the Federal Vision decided not to contact any
of what R. C. Sproul called the “accused” personally. They
were satisfied with a stack of papers and web printouts. It’s
the kind of thing that makes you stop and say, Hmmm.
3
During the PCA debate on the Federal Vision, PCA minister
David Coffin dismissed N.T. Wright’s supposed claim to
have discovered the gospel that had been hidden for centuries.
Coffin finds Wright’s claims dubious.
I am dubious that Wright actually makes the claims that
Coffin attributed to him. Wright claims to have discovered
fresh insight into Paul’s letters, but he doesn’t claim, as Coffin
implied, that he’s the first ever to understand Paul’s gospel.
Leave that to the side. The irony of Coffin’s statement
runs deep, because in the end the PCA voted in favor of the
committee report in order to defend justification by faith,
14
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3
which, if Alister McGrath is to be believed, is a theological
innovation of the first order (a quite proper theological
innovation, I should add).
It’s not hard to imagine a sixteenth-century Cardinal
saying, “Dr. Luther, we have known since the time of Saint
Augustine that iustificare means ‘to make just.’ Are you telling
us that we have been wrong for 1000 years? Are you the first
to understand the gospel? I find that dubious.”
4
The Federal Vision has been about a lot of things, but one of
the central pastoral issues has to do with the status of our
children, what we say to them, and how we say it. From one
perspective, the Federal Vision is an effort to articulate a
consistent paedobaptist theology. Douglas Wilson said awhile
ago that this is all about children. I agree.
The pastoral import of the Federal Vision is that we can
say to our children, without mental reservation, “God is your
God. Trust Him, and He will be your God.”
The critical edge of this is that the Federal Vision
exposes the ambivalence that weakens the testimony of many
Presbyterian and paedobaptist churches—the ambivalence
that says both “God is your God” and also “God is maybe not
your God. We can’t tell. We’ll be able to tell later. But maybe
not.”
FV: You know, for kids.
5
In other words, paedocommunion lurks behind the whole
Federal Vision debate. Paedocommunion disambiguates the
ambiguous “God is/isn’t your God” that paedobaptism
without paedocommunion declares to our children.
6
In his stimulating book Liturgical Theology, Simon Chan argues
that a crucial weakness of Protestant and evangelical theology
is that it ends the gospel story with the ascension and doesn’t
see that Pentecost and the church are integral to the evangel.
This is not Jesus’ own version of the gospel. Jesus says in Luke
24 that the Old Testament is not only about the Christ, but
about the preaching of repentance to all nations. Acts also
recapitulates Israel’s history.
Without a pneumatologically shaped ecclesiology, Chan
says, Protestantism permits sociology to fill the vacuum: “If
the Spirit is linked to the church in any way, it is to the
invisible church, such as in the Spirit’s bringing spiritual
rebirth to individuals. The visible church is largely defined
sociologically, while the ‘real’ church cannot be identified with
anything visible. Such an ecclesiology could only be described
as docetic.”
CONTRA
If this is true of Protestantism in general, it’s true of
certain brands of Reformed theology in spades, for which
membership in the visible church is only “external” or “legal”
membership in the covenant (that is, purely “sociological”).
For this kind of Reformed theology, the Spirit is at work only
in that circle within the circle of the church, within that
invisible circle that invisibly circumscribes those who are truly
(but invisibly) in the real (albeit invisible) church. The Spirit
leaves the visible church as such to fend for her/itself.
Chan’s proposal is no minor adjustment. Far from it. It
messes with the foundations of Western ecclesiology going
back far beyond the Reformation, to the time when
ecclesiology first began to be framed in categories from
Roman law. And it also messes with modern secularism’s
belief that the church might possibly be a “merely social”
society, the secular belief that the church is supernatural only
in private. It subverts the secular belief that, whatever we
might say about individuals, a pneumatological society is
impossible.
This is another perspective on the Federal Vision: It
stands against sociology—more precisely, it stands against
any sociology that claims to be anything other than
pneumatology and ecclesiology—and stands equally, it must
be said, against any pneumatology and ecclesiology that doesn’t
simultaneously claim to be a sociology.
The Federal Vision is an effort to elaborate the third
article of the Nicene Creed.
7
The PCA Committee denies that one is elect “by virtue of”
baptism. Good for them. They should condemn this kind of
nonsense.
But what does the denial mean? The statement is
ambiguous, since “election” can refer to the general election
that applies to all who are members of the chosen new Israel
or to the special, eternal election of the eschatological Israel.
In either case, though, election is not “by virtue of” baptism,
and nobody has ever said it is.
Election, in both its general and special senses, is an
unconditional sovereign act of God. Baptism may express
God’s election to membership in the church; but election is
not dependent on baptism.
8
The PCA Federal Vision report condemns the notion that
some receive saving benefits of Christ and later lose them. But
this runs contrary to the PCA’s own covenant understanding
of infant baptism and the statements of its own Constitution.
Consider: Children of believers, Presbyterians confess,
are covenant children. Presbyterians often say that God is a
God to us and to our children. In fact, according to the PCA
Book of Church Order (BOCO), the following statement is to
be read at baptisms: “For to you is the promise, and to your
children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord
our God shall call unto him. And I will establish my covenant
between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their
generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee
and to thy seed after thee. Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou
shalt be saved, thou and thy house (Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7;
Acts 16:31)” (BOCO 56-5).
A straightfoward reading implies that we can say to every
child in a PCA church, “God has made promises to you. God
is your God. You are a covenant child.” Head-for-head, we
can say those things to our children, every baptized infant in
the PCA.
Now, is being a “covenant child” a saving benefit or not?
Is having God as our God a saving benefit or not? Of course it
is: Claiming God as my God is the saving benefit. Yet, no
Presbyterian on earth (including me) believes that everyone
who is baptized will end up sharing in the new heavens and
new earth. So, our children enjoy this crucial saving benefit,
but some will lose it. (Alternatively, we say what the BOCO
requires, but don’t really mean it. See numbers 4-5 above.)
We can push this further. If God is God to our children,
does that not imply that God has forgiven and accepted them?
Does it make any sense to say that God is God of our
children, and yet also to say that they are children of wrath,
piling up sins until they exercise personal faith? Do we say to
our children, “God is your God, but He holds all your sins
against you”? Ought we to say, “God is your God, but you are
also a child of wrath”?
The PCA constitution does not support this kind of
double-speak. BOCO 56-4, alluding to 1 Corinthians 7, says
that children of believers are “federally holy before Baptism,
and therefore are they baptized” (BOCO 56-4, h). That the
BOCO immediately says that the “inward grace and virtue of
baptism is not tied to the very moment of time wherein it is
administered” (BOCO 56-4, i) creates some potential
dissonance. But the dissonance doesn’t undermine the
statement about the holiness of covenant children. The federal
holiness mentioned in 56-4, h, after all, doesn’t depend on
baptism; it is the gift to the children of believers, and according to the BOCO is the basis not the result of baptism. 56-4, i
doesn’t even qualify the statement about federal holiness.
If our children are holy, they are accepted, cleansed; if
they are holy, they have access. What else does “holy” mean?
And is that not a “saving benefit”? (Alternatively, the term
“federally” that qualified holiness might be defined as “not
really.”)
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
15
CONTRA
9
Baptism has a promissory aspect. The Lord promises forgiveness and life in the Word, and calls hearers to faith. Baptism
is a ritual form of the same promise, offering this gift to me by
name, and baptism calls the baptized to trust the God who
has baptized him.
Baptism not only offers gifts, however, but confers gifts,
and it confers some gifts on all the baptized, reprobate and
elect.
Baptism is itself a gift. Whether or not the baptized ever
believes, the Father has personally addressed him, personally
and directly promised life in the Son by the Spirit. God does
not address everyone in this direct and personal manner. To
be so addressed is a privilege, a mercy, a gift of grace, a
wholly unmerited favor.
It’s often said that those who are baptized but never
believe haven’t received the offered gift. That’s one way to say
it, and gets at the truth that those who do not believe never
received the gift rightly, since they despise the Giver.
Another way to say it is that they have received the gift,
but abused it. They have, after all, received baptism. Baptism is
just there, as real as the drops of water streaming down the
head. If baptism itself is a gift, the baptized inevitably receives
at least this gift when he’s baptized, whether he responds
rightly to it or not.
In receiving baptism, the baptized receive a great deal
more. The baptized person is brought into the community of
the church, which is the body of Christ. That’s a gift. The
baptized is made a member of the family of the Father. That’s
a gift. The baptized is separated from the world and identified before the world as a member of Christ’s people. That’s a
gift. The baptized is enlisted in Christ’s army, invested to be
Christ’s servant, made a member of the royal priesthood,
given a station in the royal court, branded as a sheep of
Christ’s flock. All that is gift.
All this is not only offered but conferred on the baptized.
All this he receives simply by virtue of being baptized.
Some will spurn the gift. Some will say, “I don’t believe I
belong to Christ. I don’t believe I’m a sheep of His flock, or a
soldier in His retinue.” Some will enlist enthusiastically for a
time, and then go AWOL. But their failure is not a failure to
receive a gift. Their failure is a failure to use it rightly.
10
According to the PCA Federal Vision Study Committee, the
Westminster Confession condemns the view that people can
receive saving benefits from Christ temporarily.
Does the Apostle Peter conform to the Westminster
Standards as interpreted by the Federal Vision Study
Committee?
16
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3
At the beginning of his second epistle, Peter says that
“divine power” has granted “everything pertaining to life and
godliness” (1:3). God communicates the life and godliness
that results from His power “through the knowledge of Him
who called us by His own glory and excellence” (1:3),
presumably Jesus (cf. 1:16). This knowledge is clearly not just
intellectual or doctrinal, but personal knowledge of the Savior
and Lord Jesus. The result is both positive and negative: We
are promised that we will be made “partakers of divine
nature” and we are promised that God’s power will deliver us
from “the corruption that is in the world by lust” (1:4).
A cluster of the same terms appears at the end of chapter
2:
* Peter speaks of some who have “escaped” (apophugontes),
using the same form of the same verb found in 1:4.
* In 2:20, the people Peter talks about have escaped the
miasma tou kosmou, the “miasma of the world.” Peter’s wording
is slightly different in 1:4: We have escaped the “in-theworld-by-lust-corruption,” and “corruption” is phthoras rather
than miasma. The thought in the two passages is very similar,
however. (I suspect that “world” here refers to Judaism, and
that there’s an implicit analogy with the exodus.)
* In 2:20, the instrument for escaping the miasma of the
world is the “knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
This is the same instrument God uses for communicating
grace and peace (1:2) and for granting life and godliness
(1:3). It is the same knowledge by which we grow in grace
(3:18). It is possible, further, that 2:21’s reference to the
“way of righteousness” should be personalized—knowing the
way of righteousness is knowing the Righteous One who is the
Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Peter, in short, uses very similar language to describe the
people in 1:3–4 and 2:20. Both have escaped from the world;
both have escaped from the world through the knowledge of
Jesus. There are differences, to be sure: Peter does not say
that God has granted “everything pertaining to life and
godliness” to those in 2:20. But the similarities are striking:
The people in 2:20 know Jesus, and receive some benefit
from that knowledge.
But those benefits are temporary. While those Peter
describes in chapter 1 grow from faith to virtue to knowledge
to self-control, and so on, the people in 2:20 don’t remain in
the way of righteousness. They return to the miasma of the
world, and their last state is worse than the first (2:20b–22).
They are people who have failed to grow because they have
“forgotten purification from former sins” (1:9).
So, again, my question: Does the Apostle Peter conform
to the Westminster Standards as interpreted by the Federal
Vision Study Committee?
CONTRA
11
Of all the declarations of the PCA Federal Vision Study
Report, the most mystifying is the one that reaffirms justification by faith and rejects final justification according to works.
This became the central issue in the “debate” on the floor of
GA, and this was likely the reason for the resounding support
for the report.
It’s mystifying first because, R.C. Sproul to the contrary,
justification by faith is not being challenged.
It’s also mystifying because the Westminster Confession,
part of the constitution of the PCA, clearly teaches judgment
according to works (33.1): “In which day, not only the
apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that
have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of
Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds;
and to receive according to what they have done in the body,
whether good or evil.”
The committee, by contrast, says, “The view that
justification is in any way based on our works, or that the socalled ‘final verdict of justification’ is based on anything other
than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received
through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.”
These two statements are, to put it delicately, hard to
square with each other. Perhaps the committee is using
“justification” or “final verdict of justification” in a sense
different from how I understand those. When anyone
associated with the Federal Vision says “final verdict of
justification,” they mean “final judgment.”
Perhaps, too, the committee is emphasizing the “based
on” part of its statement. The argument might be this: “Good
works are not the ultimate cause of God’s final justification of
the righteous. They merely serve as evidence of genuine
faith.” That is a quite traditional view, but even on this view
the final judgment is “based on” works in the same way that
every judgment in a court is supposed to be “based on”
evidence.
It appears that the committee condemns the very view
that WCF 33.1 articulates, since the Confession says explicitly
that what we receive at the final judgment will be “according
to what they have done,” which is something other than the
“perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through
faith alone.”
12
Revelation 20:11–15 is widely taken as a scene of final
judgment. Despite some potential preterist doubts, it does
appear to be a final judgment scene. It comes after the
millennium, and the ones to be judged are raised from the
dead.
The dead in verse 12 includes all the dead, not only the
wicked dead. The names of some of the dead are found
written in the book of life, and they escape the lake of fire.
Those names not written are tossed into the lake of fire, with
death and Hades.
Twice in this passage, John says that the dead are judged
according to their works. They “were judged from the things
which were written in the books, according to their deeds” (v.
12); and “they were judged, every one of them according to
their deeds” (v. 13).
Would John fall afoul of the Westminster Standards as
interpreted by the Federal Vision Study Committee?
As the prooftexts to WCF 33.1 show, this is the consistent teaching of Old and New Testaments:
Ecclesiastes 12:14: “For God shall bring every work into
judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or
whether it be evil.”
Matthew 12:36–37: “But I say unto you, That every idle
word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in
the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified,
and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”
Romans 2:16: “In the day when God shall judge the
secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”
Romans 14:10, 12: “But why dost thou judge thy
brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we
shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.… So then
every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”
2 Corinthians 5:10: “For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things
done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be
good or bad.”
Not to mention John 5:28–29: “for an hour is coming, in
which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will
come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of
life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of
judgment.”
Or 1 Corinthians 4:5: “Therefore do not go on passing
judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who
will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and
disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s
praise will come to him from God.”
I haven’t been able to find a single text that plausibly talks
about final judgment—or about temporal judgments for that
matter—that says anything different. God renders and will
render to each according to what he has done. Works may be
“merely” evidence, but God’s final judgment will be based on
this evidence, and not the evidence of Christ’s personal
obedience in the flesh.
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
17
CONTRA
13
It’s been suggested that there is some conflict between my
denial of human merit and my defense of judgment according
to works.
There is no conflict. There is not even a tension. Nary a
whisper.
We are judged, after all, according to works that are
entirely gifts from God. The life we live in the flesh—the life of
action and doing—is lived by faith in the Son of God who
lives in me. As Augustine said, when God rewards our works,
He is simply crowning His own works. At the judgment, the
Father gives judgment into the hands of the Son, who
approves the works we have done, which have been produced
by the Spirit. God the Father looked at the fruit trees springing from the ground (the ground having produced them) on
the third day, turned to the Son and Spirit, and said, “That’s
good. Well done, good and faithful dirt.” At the final
judgment, the Son will approve what we have done, which is
the effect and fruit of the Spirit working in us: “That’s good.
Well done, good and faithful men-of-dirt.”
We are not rewarded because we have earned the
reward, because we have done so well that we have staked a
claim on God. There’s no merit here any more than there was
for Adam. We receive a reward of grace, just as Adam would
have if he had remained faithful.
On the other hand, there is a tension between a meritorious covenant with Adam and judgment according to works.
On this paradigm, evaluation according to works is the
standard in Eden but never after. From the garden’s gate to
the final judgment, we are evaluated only according to
imputed righteousness. On this view, saying that we are
judged by works is saying that we have merited eternal
salvation.
Based on this view, many in the PCA condemn the
Federal Vision for undermining justification by faith. But that
criticism only holds if the Federal Vision believes that human
works can be meritorious. But that’s precisely the view that the
Federal Vision has been questioning.
Ergo, the Federal Vision support for judgment according
to works poses no danger to justification by faith alone. None.
No more than Romans 2:13 poses a threat to Romans 3:2131.
14
Does judgment according to works contradict the gospel?
Does it reintroduce law back in the covenant of grace at the
last minute? Is judgment according to works God’s final
“Gotcha”?
Not at all. Judgment according to works is part of the
gospel. Paul hopes for the day when “according to my gospel,
18
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3
God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus”
(Rom 2:16), a judgment that will “render to every man
according to his deeds” (Rom. 2:6, quoting Psalm 62:12).
This is good news because Jesus, in contrast to all human
authorities, will “judge the world in righteousness” (Acts 17:31).
Not at all, again. Judgment according to our deeds does
not reintroduce law, because the promise that God will
produce good deeds in us is a central gospel promise. This is
the new covenant, that Yahweh will “put My laws into their
minds, and I will write them upon their hearts” (Hebrews
8:10, quoting Jeremiah 31). The Spirit is given to enable us to
walk in the statues and commandments of God (Ezekiel
36:27), so that the “righteous requirement of the law may be
fulfilled in us, who walk according to the Spirit and not
according to the flesh” (Rom. 8:4).
Of course, all our works are tainted by our prior sins, our
continuing sins, the remnants of the flesh in us. Of course, our
works are acceptable only in Christ. Of course, the gospel is
about the forgiveness of sins and standing before God in
Christ the Righteous One.
But our works are acceptable, and we really do good
works because God is at work in us to do His will. The good
news is that Christ the Righteous One in whom we stand will,
by the power of His Spirit, renew us in righteousness. The
good news is about a law written with the Spirit on the tablets
of human hearts, not on stone. The gospel is about God giving
us hearts that are not stone but flesh.
This has a couple of important implications. It means
that our works are just as much a matter of grace-throughfaith as our right standing with God. God has promised that
He will produce fruit in us by His Spirit. We trust Him for
that, ask Him to do it more and more, believe Him as we
receive the various gifts He gives us to cultivate this fruit—
baptism, the table, the word, fellowship, the guidance of
elders—in short, the church.
It also means that a judgment that is not according to
works is in tension with the gospel. This is subtle, but
consider: God promises to produce good fruit in His people
by His Spirit. He gave His Son on the cross, raised Him from
the dead, and poured out the Spirit on us, for precisely that
reason. He says He’s going to do it.
Suppose we get to the final judgment, and we haven’t
produced the fruit of good works by reliance on the Spirit.
Suppose we get to the final judgment, and God finds that the
Spirit has not caused the people of God to walk in the ways of
His commandments and statues after all. Suppose we get to
the final judgment and God discovers, to His surprise, that
this gospel promise has not been fulfilled.
Will God say, “Well, that didn’t quite work. You really
didn’t produce any good fruit. Turns out the flesh beat the
CONTRA
Spirit in the end. Not what I expected. Guess I’ll let you in,
but only because of Jesus’ obedience, not your own.”
It’s a caricature, of course. Nobody teaches this. But it’s a
caricature with a point.
Under those circumstances, has God made good on His
promise? Under those circumstances, has God kept the
promise He made in the gospel that His Spirit will make us
walk in His ways? If no one can stand in the judgment when
his Spirit-induced works are judged, hasn’t the gospel
promise failed?
Of course, no need to worry. God’s promises are Yes and
Amen in Jesus. He’s kept them all, and He’s going to keep this
one too. And when He comes to the end of it all, He will
delight in His works, the Triune works which wholly envelop
ours.
15
Is the denial of judgment according to works implicitly
binitarian?
If we are judged according to Christ’s imputed righteousness, then at the judgment, Jesus’ works are approved
but not ours. The judgment is Father-Son. Where’s the Spirit?
If our works are the works of the Spirit in us, then their
approval is the Son’s final judgment about the Spirit, the
vindication of the Spirit as the Spirit of righteousness. At the
final judgment, the Son, speaking the Father’s final word as
the Incarnate Word, will say that the Spirit did everything
expected of Him. The Spirit will be able to join with the Son
in saying, “It is finished.”
If judgment is not according to works, when is the Spirit
finally vindicated? When do the Father and Son say, “Well
done, good and faithful Spirit”?
(I’m not, for the record, claiming that those who differ on
this point are non-Trinitarians. I’m simply suggesting that
they haven’t worked through the implications of Trinitarian
theology as thoroughly as they might.)
16
The Father has put judgment into the hands of the Son (John
5), and God the Father has appointed a day on which the
Risen Son will judge all men (Acts 17:31). The judge of all
will be a Man, as Paul says in Acts 17.
According to the PCA Federal Vision Study Committee,
the “so-called final verdict of justification” is based entirely on
“the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received
through faith alone.”
Doesn’t that mean that Jesus is passing judgment on His
own obedience? And isn’t that slightly odd? Doesn’t Jesus seek
His Father’s approval, rather than His own?
17
Luther illustrates justification with the image of a mortally sick
man and his doctor. The doctor is so certain that he is going
to heal the patient that he declares him well already, and tells
the patient to consider himself well. The patient trusts the
doctor so thoroughly that he considers himself well now, takes
all the medicine prescribed, and looks eagerly to the time
when he’s finally healed. (Scot Hafemann, incidentally, has
argued that Paul’s doctrine of justification is very like this.)
Though this parable doesn’t capture everything that the
Bible says about justification, it neatly captures a number of
things:
* The patient is, in the present, simultaneously sick and
well. Sick in that he is not wholly healed, well in the judgment
of the doctor and in his own trusting judgment.
* The patient’s “status” is that of “well.” That’s what the
doctor puts on his chart. The patient accepts this judgment
because he trusts the doctor, not because of the condition of
his own body or his self-diagnosis.
* Justification on this view is a verdict or judgment
already passed. The patient is well. That’s how the doctor
regards him, and how the patient should regard himself. But
he is well in spe, in hope. This “verdict” points to the final
state of the patient, which is one of complete healing. The
faith that receives justification is the assurance of things hoped
for, the substance of things not seen.
* The present judgment of health in this parable is
grounded in the future state of the patient. The doctor saying
“you are well” depends on his confident “I will heal you.” But
notice that the future state of the patient is not the product of
the patient’s own doing at all. It’s all the doctor’s doing. The
doctor doesn’t pronounce the patient healthy because he
knows the patient has the capacity to make himself healthy.
The patient doesn’t have that capacity, which is why the
patient has to rely completely on the doctor. The physician
pronounces the patient well because of the doctor’s confidence in his own healing powers. All the patient can do is trust
the doctor, take his medicine, and look ahead to his recovery.
* The doctor’s “verdict” on the patient is also a commitment to see the patient through to complete healing.
On Luther’s analogy, then, the verdict of justification is
not only a statement about the present status of the person
justified. The verdict is also a promise about what the
Physician will do for the person. In saying “You are right in
Christ,” the Father is also saying “And I have given my Spirit
to make you righteous in fact.” Justification is God’s pronouncement that things are right; and it is likewise His utter
commitment, His commitment of His Triune self, that He
will not rest until things are set right.
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
19
CONTRA
Is this promissory aspect of justification sufficiently
appreciated in Reformed churches?
18
Did Adam have to exercise faith in the garden, prior to sin?
Of course. He was a creature.
Creatures are utterly dependent on the Creator for
everything, absolutely everything. That’s what it means to be a
creature. An utterly dependent being is a being whose stance
must be one of expectant trust.
God said, “Eat from the trees.” Can Adam produce the
fruit? No. He had to trust God for food.
God said, “It’s not good for man to be alone.” Could
Adam find a helper suitable to him? No. He had to trust God.
God put Adam into deep sleep and tore him in two.
Adam has to entrust himself to Yahweh just as surely as
Abraham did when Yahweh told him to sacrifice Isaac.
Adam went into deep sleep exercising the faith of
Hebrews 11—hoping for something delightful that he had
not yet seen.
Denying that Adam had to exercise faith is an implicit
denial of his creaturehood.
19
If some of the baptized end up in hell, how can baptism be an
instrument of assurance?
Might as well ask the same question about the Word: If
some who hear the Word end up in hell, how can the Word
be an instrument of assurance?
In both cases, the answer is this: Baptism and the Word
fail to assure when those who receive the promise do not
believe it, or do not continue to believe it. Baptism and the
Word fail to bring assurance to people who regard God as a
liar.
We get into problems when we look for some ground of
assurance more solid, certain, and well-grounded than the
promise of God.
But there is no better ground for assurance than the
mercy of God.
Baptism is God’s promise to me, personally, by name. I
know that God has promised Himself to me because I know
that I was baptized. I’m just supposed to believe that, rely on
it. That’s the way of assurance.
If I’m looking for some way to peek over God’s shoulder
(or my own) and see if He really promised Himself to me, I’m
looking for something more solidly reliable than the promise
of God. If I look for something else, I’m looking for the real
God behind the God-who-promises.
But there is no other God, and the attempt to find one is
simple, straightforward idolatry. Nor is there any backdoor
20
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3
entrance to His presence. We don’t need to find a back alley
entry (discovering whether we are elect, having some kind of
indubitable experience of assurance) because God left the
front door wide open. That’s the gospel; it’s the gospel of the
open door. God faces us in Jesus, who is the Face of the
Father, offers promises, assures us in Word and water and
wine of His self-commitment to us.
We have only to believe it.
20
It may seem that emphasizing the promissory nature of
baptism and the Supper is a reversion from the Reformation.
On the contrary: in popular medieval piety, no common
believer could have assurance simply by hearing the promises
of God, receiving baptism, receiving the Supper (which he
rarely did anyway). To have real assurance, they had to find a
mystical backdoor to God.
The Reformers said that God has come near to us and
that His promises are true. God hasn’t hidden Himself. The
gospel says, “He’s come out of hiding; He’s come in the flesh
of Jesus; He’s shown Himself.”
And this available God has made Himself available to the
ending of the world through His Spirit in Word and Sacrament.
The Reformation was about closing the back door and
locking it tight. The Reformation was about letting people
come in the front. That’s the pastoral program the Federal
Vision attempts to continue.
21
Imagine you’re a sharp young New Testament scholar of
Reformed conviction, who wants to engage the latest New
Testament scholarship fairly, critically, and appreciatively
where appropriate.
Imagine you’re a theologian of Reformed inclinations
who’s looking for a place to do creative theological work.
Imagine you’re a Reformed Old Testament scholar who
wants his Old Testament scholarship to inform his theology in
a vigorous manner.
Imagine you’re a theologian who thinks that there are still
things to be discovered in Scripture, even about settled
Reformed convictions like justification by faith and election.
Imagine you’re a theologian who loves Luther and Calvin
and the Puritans, and the Westminster Confession, and The
Three Forms, and yet doesn’t believe they said everything or
said everything as well as it might be said.
If you were one of these, and you were looking for an
ecclesiastical place to raise your flag, where would you go?
What Reformed denomination would be attractive to you?
What Reformed denomination would leave you room to serve
the church in freedom?
CONTRA
22
I confess. I have read a good bit of N. T. Wright, and
appreciate much of what he has to say. His books on Jesus
opened the gospels for me in ways that nothing else did.
Wright, for those who don’t know, is a bishop in the Church
of England.
I confess. John Milbank, another Anglican, was my
dissertation advisor, and his Theology and Social Theory is a fairly
constant presence in my theology.
I confess. Russian Orthodox liturgist Alexander
Schmemann’s For the Life of the World is one of my favorite
books.
I confess. I have read Lutheran Robert Jenson with
profit, albeit mixed with a good bit of puzzlement.
And I’ll keep confessing.
I find Henri de Lubac’s books, particularly Catholicism,
Medieval Exegesis, and Corpus Mysticum, awe-inspiring both in
breadth of scholarship and in theological depth.
Geoffrey Wainwright, a Methodist, has written some
admirable books on liturgy, and I started reading Stanley
Hauerwas before he became Anglican.
Of course, I learn a great deal from Reformed writers
too: from centuries past, I’ve learned from Calvin especially,
and from the present I have learned much from Cornelius
Van Til, John Frame, Vern Poythress, Richard Gaffin,
Michael Horton, Kevin Vanhoozer, and so on.
If I came for ordination in a PCA Presbytery with such a
reading list, could I be ordained? Would I have to hide my
reading of Milbank and Wright?
23
Among other things, the Federal Vision has been an effort to
articulate a Reformed catholicity, and the fight in the PCA is
in part a fight between catholicity and sectarianism.
The massive vote at GA against the Federal Vision was,
to put it gently, not a vote in favor of catholicity.
24
According to Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy’s cross of reality,
individuals are always stretched out on a cross, in four
directions—to the past and to the future, to the inside and to
the outside. Growth and maturity come when we endure the
cross in confidence that when we are torn to pieces we will yet
be revived, that our death on the cross of reality is the gateway
to life. Like Jesus, we are glorified through the cross.
Churches are also on the cross.
Churches are called to remain faithful to the past while
also boldly embracing the novelty of the future; called to
cultivate a distinctive language and culture inside the community, while also listening attentively to voices from outside.
Life would be much easier if we could ignore one or the
other poles of the cross. Life would be much easier if we could
retreat to a pure in-group and ignore everybody else,
everybody who disagrees with us. Life would be much easier if
we could rest in the securities of the past rather than face the
uncertainties of the future.
Life is easier off the cross, but if we get off the cross, we
will never grow up.
At the 2007 General Assembly, the PCA showed its
adolescent desire to come down from the cross, retreating
into the safety of the past and denouncing those willing to
listen attentively (if critically) to voices outside.
This is safe. This is easy. But this is not the path to
greater maturity or deepening reformation. Because unless we
are torn, we will never grow, or grow up. Unless we are torn
in all four directions, we’re bound to stay children forever.
peach petals floating,
now drift down on the water,
ah, presbytery!
Douglas Wilson
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
21
PRESBYTERION
Can a Nature/Grace Dualism
Be Born Again?
Douglas Wilson
A FEW YEARS AGO I read Harold Bloom’s The American
Religion with great interest. He makes many points which I
thought quite compelling, the main one being that the
American approach to religious faith is fundamentally
gnostic. He, being a gnostic himself (p. 30), thinks this is
all to the good, while I, not being a gnostic, am not cool
with it. At the same time, since he is a gnostic, he does us
all a valuable service by identifying his fellow gnostics—
the same kind of service that was performed by the former
Soviet Union when they opened up all their old KGB files,
proving that Joe McCarthy was in the main correct—and
according to Bloom his fellow gnostics are everywhere.
They are found in Mormonism, the Southern Baptist
Convention, Adventists, and Pentecostals. This is far more
than just a glib assertion—he has a lot of evidence to
support him.
On what might appear to be an unrelated topic, I
recently finished Peter Leithart’s very fine book on
baptism, The Baptized Body, and while I was reading it, the
penny dropped, and I figured out one of the sticking
points in my discussions with Jim Jordan over the necessity
of regeneration (covered somewhat in the following
pages). This is a classic illustration of how a set of
paradigmatic assumptions, like a good outboard motor,
can drive the boat even though nobody can see the prop
going.
Leithart said this: “For Baptist practice, redemption—inclusion in the new humanity that is the church—
adds a second layer of ‘religious life’ to the ‘natural life’ of
creation. This is necessarily the case, since children begin
their ‘natural’ life of physical and socio-cultural growth
before coming to faith. This dualism of nature/culture and
religion means that Christ is not in a full sense the ‘New
Adam’ who inaugurates a race that will fulfill Adam’s
calling to dominion” (p. 130).
On the next page, he wrote, “By positing a distinction
between natural life and natural teleology over and against
supernatural life and supernatural teleology, and by
suggesting that natural life (which includes cultural and
political life) had its own integrity that needs only to be
‘completed’ by the supernatural addition of grace,
scholastic theology wrote the preamble to nature and
culture’s ‘declaration of independence’ from God” (p.
131).
22
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3
Now stay with me, because this is where it gets fun.
As an historic evangelical I insist on the absolute necessity
of the new birth. And so I do. But what do Americans hear
when they hear such words? What do American Christians
hear? The new birth is a supernatural act, but what kind of
supernatural act is it? There is a kind of “born againism”
which is gnostic, which Bloom celebrates, and which Jim
Jordan is leaning against. There is another kind (I am
convinced) which is not at all gnostic, and does not need
anybody to lean against it.
If you assume that in the supernatural act of regeneration God comes down and implants a grace node in your
heart, then this is a form of gnosticism, and it helps
perpetuate that pestilent nature/grace dualism. But if you
hold that the act of regeneration is supernatural, and that
the results are entirely “natural,” then this is not gnostic.
For example, Jesus exercised miraculous power when
He transformed the water into wine. The act was one of
supernatural power, but the wine that resulted was natural
wine, and the water He started with was natural water. If
the master of the feast had been a trained sommelier, he
would have been able to tell by taste what vineyard that
wine came from. He would have been technically wrong, of
course, because it actually came from the well in the town
square, but you can’t have everything. The gnostic would
want the miracle to start out with water, and wind up with
ambrosia, the supernatural elixir of the gods. In the biblical
faith, the act is the miracle. In gnosticism, the result is the
miracle.
So regeneration is an act of God’s kindness and
power, in which He changes me from one kind of human
being (with Adam for a father) to another kind of human
being (with the last Adam for a father). Before, during and
after the process, I am a human being. In that respect,
nothing changes. But with regard to who my father is (and
regeneration always assumes generation), everything
changes. In respect to how it is done, it is a miraculous
intervention of God’s grace.
I am not born again because something alien to the
nature of humanity was implanted in me. The nature/
grace dualism creates the temptation to think that way,
and, at the end of the day, we are fighting off gnosticism.
Rather, I am regenerate because I was miraculously
transferred from a deteriorating way of being human to
another restored way of being human. It is natural water to
natural wine, supernaturally done. It is not natural water to
supernatural ambrosia, supernaturally done.
REGENERATION
Life in the Regeneration
Douglas Wilson
This series of thoughts was originally part of an internet discussion a few
years ago with Jim Jordan over his essay Regeneration: Some
Tentative Explorations. Readers familiar with Jordan’s essay will
understand more of the interaction, but the thoughts contained here can still
stand on their own. Since writing this, while reading Peter Leithart’s fine
book The Baptized Body, some additional thoughts on this important
subject occurred to me, which can be found on the previous page.
THE REFORMED world is currently cooking up a perfect Irish
stew controversy. Thrown into the pot have been the meaning
of regeneration, imputation, and justification, the relationship
of faith and works, the New Perspective on Paul, the firing of
Norman Shepherd twenty years ago from Westminister
Seminary, and a Presbyterian (!) newspaper charging me with
having become a paedobaptist ten years ago.
Part of this strange mix has been a concern to protect the
historic evangelical faith with regard to the new birth. The
point of this series of meditations is to offer a defense of the
historic evangelical understanding of regeneration, but also to
place it in a more scriptural context. That context is the
Restoration of the heavens and earth that came with Jesus
Christ. Hence the title—Life in the Regeneration. The new
life in Jesus Christ is a reality in the heart of each individual
genuinely converted to God. But this new life has come to pass
in a new world, a world or age that Jesus called the Regeneration (Matt. 19:2).
***
There is an important sense in which regeneration has to be
understood as applied to individuals. But this is not the
primary thrust of the scriptural emphasis. If we emphasize
individual regeneration alone, we will lose the glory of the
biblical message of Regeneration. But if we keep the scriptural
emphasis, we lose nothing with regard to individuals.
***
As we talk about what it means to be “born again,” we have to
preserve the scriptural pattern and order. First, as the
cornerstone of all doctrines of regeneration, Jesus was born
again from the dead (Col. 1:18). Because of Christ’s birth
from among the dead, the whole created order was made new
in Him. We have a new heaven and a new earth because of
Him. He is the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15). Jesus was
raised from the dead for us, so that He might be the first born
among many brethren (Rom. 8:29).
In doing this for us, Christ accomplished the resurrection
of Israel (Ez. 37:1-14), which is why Nicodemus, a teacher in
this Israel, should have known what Christ was talking about
(John 3:7). You all must be born again. But this national
regeneration carries individuals with it. A man must be born
again to see the kingdom of God (John 3:3,5)
***
Christ was born again from the dead. Because of this, the
whole created order was born again from the dead. Because of
this, Israel was born again from the dead and is now the
Church. Because of this, a man can be born again and enter
the Church. If he was already in the Church, he can be born
again and become a true son of the Church.
***
Jesus Christ, the firstborn, is therefore head of the Church of
the Firstborn (Heb. 12:23). All of this is indicated in Paul’s
interpretation of the second psalm—
And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the
promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath
fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath
raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second
psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee
(Acts 13:32-33).
When Christ was begotten from the dead in the resurrection,
this was the fulfillment of a promise God made to our fathers.
And because Christ entered resurrection life, we may enter
His resurrection life. We may be born again.
***
It should not surprise us to find pockets of “unregeneration”
in this world made new. The yeast works through the loaf
gradually. But the yeast is alive, and brings life to the whole.
Thus we find creatures who hate the new creation around
them. Thus we find baptized covenant members who
inexplicably hate the church of the Firstborn that claims them
by baptism. No matter. Let God be true, and every man a
liar—for the time being.
***
But these pockets of “unregeneration” have caused more than
a few theological headaches. How can a part of the whole not
have what the living whole has? Moreover, how can a part of
the whole not really have what that part, as part of the whole,
has?
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
23
REGENERATION
***
This is the beginning of all spiritual wisdom. Among the sons
of Sarah, we find sons of both Sarah and Hagar. Among the
Jews, we find Jews and Gentiles. Among the regenerate, we
find the regenerate and the unregenerate. Among the elect, we
find the elect and the reprobate. Until the resurrection, why
do these two categories always arise?
***
Before talking about regeneration, we have to remember the
importance of generation. Out of the five points of Calvinism,
three of them have to do with the decrees of God. “Total
depravity” has to do with this morning’s newspaper (the
record of man in the past), and is not one of the secret things
hidden from us. The sin of man is revealed to us, and if we
believe the Scriptures, can actually be seen by us. So the place
to start in understanding regeneration would not be those
passages which talk about regeneration (or even apostasy), but
those passages which speak about the generation of unbelieving covenant members. Regeneration cannot be understood
apart from generation.
***
Regeneration means becoming the seed of another—
ultimately, having one family tree and then acquiring a
different one. My father used to be Adam and now he is the
last Adam. My father used to be the devil and now he is
Abraham. A creature being summoned into being ex nihilo is
being created. We might say he is being born. We would
never say that he was being reborn. Rebirth entails having
been in existence already, with another father.
***
Regeneration means being transformed from the seed of the
serpent to the seed of the woman. This cannot simply be
equated with baptism (or circumcision in the Old Testament)
because most of the “broods of vipers” identified for us in the
Bible were covenant members.
***
On all questions regarding regeneration, the basic question is:
Who’s your daddy? Outside the covenant, the devil is father.
For the elect, God is our Father. But for the reprobate
covenant member, God is his Father in a real covenantal sense,
24
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3
but in another tangible way, the devil is still his father. This is
fully consistent with how Jesus addresses unbelieving covenant
members. The emphasis is mine.
I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me,
because my word hath no place in you. I speak that
which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which
ye have seen with your father. They answered and said
unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye
were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But
now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the
truth, which I have heard of God: this did not
Abraham. (John 8:37–40)
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father
ye will do. (John 8:44)
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the
damnation of hell? (Matt. 23:33)
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of
the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of
God, neither he that loveth not his brother. (1 John
3:10)
***
Our interest in such passages should not have to do with the
wickedness as such, but rather with the divine “paternity suit”
that follows on the basis of it. If some covenant members are
children of the devil and others are not (as the quotation from
1 John indicates), then there must be a divide of nature—
different fathers require different natures, and vice versa.
Now I am aware that some may want to reject the very idea of
“nature.” But such a rejection is problematic in discussions of
regeneration because it is impossible in discussions of
generation. We generate according to our kinds, we generate
our nature. A fig tree bears figs, according to its nature, and
does not bear oranges, which would be contrary to its nature.
***
In fact, biblically speaking, “nature” is not captured by a static
Hellenistic definition, but rather something that is revealed
through the process of generation. The nature of the father is
found in the nature of the son. In order to acquire a different
nature, I must acquire a different father.
REGENERATION
***
***
In order to take all baptized covenant members as participants in Christ in the “strong sense,” we would have to
distinguish what is objectively given in Christ, and not what is
subjectively done with those objective benefits. Perseverance
would, on this reading, be what was subjectively done with
what God has objectively given. In this view, the person who
did not persevere was not given less of Christ. But this
necessarily means that persevering grace is not an objective
gift or grace. God’s willingness to continue “the wrestling”
would depend upon what kind of fight we put up, or cooperation we provide, and because no one’s fundamental nature has
been changed, those natures remain at “enmity with God.” In
this view, whatever total depravity means, it is not
ontologically changed, just knocked down and sat upon. The
Spirit pins one snarling dog, but not another. But this in turn
leads to another thought—eventually at some time in the
process we stop snarling and start cooperating (if we are
bound to heaven), and what do we call this change or
transformation? The historic name for this change has been
regeneration, and I see no reason to change it.
Eventually, the view that natures are unchanged (or nonexistent) has to go one of two directions—either we must
minimize how bad unbelievers are, or we must emphasize how
bad believers still are. Either way gets us into trouble, and the
only alternative is to stick with some notion of the traditional
evangelical and Reformed concept of genuine heart regeneration, which means heart transformation.
***
Affirming the absolute need for personal regeneration is the
sine qua non of historic evangelicalism. Affirming that the gates
of hell will not prevail against the Church is the sine qua non of
historic catholicity. Deny the former only, and the end result is
the deadly nominalism found in many quarters of the
institutional Church. Such saintlings need to be told that God
can make sons of Abraham out of rocks. Deny the latter only,
and you have the endless splintering sectarianism that has
come to characterize American pop evangelicalism. This
comes about when Christians cease affirming the need for an
invisible work of the Spirit of God, and presume to be able to
see exactly how and when that regeneration happens.
But the moment of regeneration is never visible to us.
Lack of regeneration, however, is visible over time because the
works of the flesh, Paul tells us, are manifest. The fruit of the
Spirit manifest themselves publicly as well, and Jesus tells us
to make our judgments on the basis of fruit. But it must be
noted that biblical judgments of this sort are mature, and are
based on the mature outcome of a person’s way of life. All this
to say that genuine discernment is based on the video, not on
the snapshot.
***
So then, for those who persevere, how they subjectively receive
grace is part of what has been objectively given. We are to
work out our salvation because God is at work in us to will
and to do for His good pleasure. My continued subjective
positive responses tomorrow must be considered as part of
His objective gift to me. We work out what He works in.
***
What are we to say to the view that the Bible does not teach
that some people are individually “regenerated”? A view that
locates perseverance in an ongoing and mysterious wrestling
of the Spirit, rather than in a change of nature of those elected
to heaven? If the Spirit wrestles with all baptized believers, but
with some more than others, then pastorally, heaven or hell
depends upon the extent of that wrestling. There has to be a
watershed in there somewhere. One obvious question that
would arise, were this kind of thing to be taught from the
pulpit, is when, how, and why does God give up on a person?
He is wrestling with all of us, meaning that all of us resist Him
to some extent. Do any cooperate with Him fully? How much
is necessary? This has the effect of locating that watershed in
our choices, which we must avoid.
***
Morbid introspection can work with virtually any doctrinal
material. In a traditional Reformed pietistic setting, it tries to
pry into the decrees of election to find out the names of the
chosen. In the view that a person in conversion does not
undergo a change of nature, the guessing would have to
involve the inscrutable whims of the Spirit. What kind of
wrestling will God do with me? How long will He be willing
to keep it up? But the basic question should always be, “Who
is my Father?” The only faithful covenantal answer is “God.”
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
25
REGENERATION
***
It cannot be the case that all who are covenantally “in Christ”
by virtue of baptism are in exactly the same position as
regards the grace and favor of God—with no distinction save
that some persevere. To think that having “all grace” except
for persevering grace is somehow reassuring is to have a
wildly skewed sense of priorities. “Other than that, how was
the play, Mrs. Lincoln?” How is God’s withholding of
perseverance not a refusal of grace? If we say that the grace
was forfeited by those who subjectively resisted His work in
their lives “too much,” then why did God withhold from them
the gift of “not resisting too much?”
Jim Jordan has helpfully shown the connection between
the ten commandments and Ezekiel’s heart of stone, and this
appears to be a connection St. Paul makes also. But this does
not really weaken the need for individual regeneration. How
could it? The apostolic treatment concludes with an indictment of individual covenant members. “But their minds were
blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken
away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done
away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read,
the vail is upon their heart” (2 Cor. 3:14–15).
Blindness is a condition which covenant members then
and now can certainly have. If the change in a person is simply
relational, then how can these covenant members be described
as blinded and having a veil on their hearts? Relationally, they
would be identical to the elect.
In reponse to the question, “What more can there be
than union with Christ?” the answer would appear to be
permanent union with Him. And this idea of permanence is one
which the Lord certainly talks about. Servants come and go,
but sons are forever.
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him,
If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples
indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth
shall make you free. They answered him, We be
Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man:
how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered
them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever
committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant
abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth
ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall
be free indeed. (John 8:31–36)
The problem with our Auburn opponents is that they wanted
to talk about passages like this one, or the wheat and tares,
and ignore the passages like John 15. But we don’t want to be
guilty of the reverse problem, camping out in John 15 and
26
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3
failing to treat the fact that many of the illustrations indicate
an ontological difference between the elect and reprobate
within the covenant as one existing the entire time. Tares are
weeds the entire time, the sow that is washed is a clean pig but
still has a natural affinity for the mire, the dog that vomited is
still a dog. On the other side, all the branches are true
branches, including those to be cut out, etc. I simply want to
affirm all the passages at face value, and let God sort it out.
The only way I can do this is to affirm the objectivity of
the covenant, affirm that ontological differences exist between
the elect and the reprobate whether the covenant is involved
or not, and affirm that we should not pry too closely into it.
We should teach that these things are so, not that we know
what and where and how they are so.
I want to affirm this kind of ontological anthropology
because the Bible repeatedly does, but it does so in terms of
the nature of the ancestry. It speaks of thornbushes, vipers, the
devil’s children, and so on, and it does this frequently when
addressing those covenant members whose spiritual ancestry
(and therefore nature) ought to have been different than it
was.
***
In the Bible, personal identity is not primarily a question of
some substance inside a man. But each man still has a nature,
inherited from his father. So ontology is not a philosophical
problem in the Bible, but rather a problem of generation. And
when this generation is sinful, the only solution to the problem
is regeneration, which is to say, generation by a new father.
So can we say that God gives exactly the same thing
(Himself) to all baptized individuals? And then account for
the differences in outcome by saying that God’s Spirit works
with all individuals differently? I don’t think so.
When someone gets married, he gives himself. And he
does so, promising that he will continue to do so forever. God
does the same with His elect.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things
present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor
any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the
love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom.
8:38–39)
The elect believe this promise, and it is always fulfilled
because the promises are always apprehended by faith. It is
not fulfilled for the reprobate covenant member because he
does not believe it, and never did. So if God gives Himself to
REGENERATION
me as my Father, then this means that I no longer have the
nature of my first father, the devil. This is why God continues
to be a Father to me. If He gave Himself fully to a reprobate
covenant member, then He would give Himself the same way
tomorrow, and the day after, and suddenly the reprobate
covenant member cannot be considered reprobate.
So long as we acknowledge that there are covenant
members who are not saved, then we must necessarily say that
God does not give Himself to all in the same way. And this is
just another way of saying that some covenant members need
to be regenerated.
***
We are not engaged in a fight to recover biblical language
simpliciter, but rather in a fight to recover the right to use
biblical language when necessary. The vocabulary of historic
liturgies, systematics, the creeds, and so on are also most
necessary, and we should have no interest in ditching them
unless absolutely necessary. Our endeavors in this whole area
should include fifty years of attempted harmonization. At the
same time, what we must reject is such uninspired creedal
vocabulary making it impossible to use biblical language (as
appropriate) without being called a heretic. I want to be able
to use the word regeneration in the same way the Synod of Dort
did, but I don’t want to be told that the usage of that venerable synod outranks Christ’s reference to life in the Regeneration.
***
Some are troubled by the idea of definitive justification at the
beginning of our Christian lives and another eschatological
“justification” at the end of history. They are right to be wary
about any attempt to smuggle autonomous works into the
equation, but wrong in not realizing that eternity/time
transactions cannot always be tidily represented on the
blackboard.
I once asked Mike Horton if he agreed with the Reformed commonplace that not only our persons needed to be
justified, but that also our works needed to be. He said that he
did. I asked him when he thought our works were to be
justified, and he answered that he thought that would be at the
last day. I thought this was a good possibility, but asked
whether this might not be construed by some as a “progressive” justification. Another possibility (it seems to me) is that
our works need to be justified as we do them, which seems to
be even more like a progressive justification. The strange thing
is that because of shibboleth/sibboleth, tomato/tomahto
issues, a man could find himself in deep presbyterial doo-doo
for saying this, depending on his pronunciation. But I cannot
imagine any Reformed man getting in trouble anywhere for
saying that our works must be justified, and not just our
persons. But suppose he talks out loud about when this might
happen?
With all this noted, we still need a word to describe the
heart transformation that occurs in everyone who goes to
heaven. And we need a word to describe the imputation of
Christ’s righteousness to the sinner. We already have
stipulated theological definitions for regeneration and
justification. Why change them? Some might want a more
strictly exegetical name or words for these realities. I am not
necessarily against this, but the disadvantage that a biblical
name has when it is being used in a precise, theological way is
that the need for consistency and precision can then displace
the broader (and more gloriously sloppy) connotations that
are usually found in any biblical usage. How does the Bible use
hypostasis? Does anyone really care anymore?
Back on the topic, in Luke 18, for example, two covenant
members go down to the Temple to pray. The Pharisee was
rigorously orthodox (and Reformed!) in his formulation. He
gave glory to God for all that he had and was (soli Deo gloria!).
He thanked God that he was not as other men (what do you
have that you did not receive as a gift?), and so forth. We see
right through this sin of his, of course, and close our Bibles in
order to thank God that we are not like that Pharisee. Sorry, I
got sidetracked.
Anyway, the other fellow confessed that he was a sinner,
and asked God to be merciful to him. God was merciful to
him, and so he went home justified rather than the other
(Luke 18:14). So here is a biblical term to describe what
happens to a repentant covenant member who is finally
getting his act together. He is justified. Now it might be
replied (and should be) that this does not do justice to the
other usages of the word justification in Scripture. Exactly so,
which is why I think we ought not to be trying to come up
with biblical phrases or uses only. We should use terms which
are consistent with Scripture, based on Scripture, and are
subordinate to Scripture. We do not pick and choose, but
rather harmonize them all. A man can be justified in one sense
and not in another. This was the condition of the Pharisee,
who went home that day unjustified. The other man had been
circumcised, and was able to worship in the temple. He was
justified, right? In one sense. But then he went home justified,
and we may assume that he had not arrived that way.
Some might want to say that we have no need to use the
word converted of such a man (which misleads people), because
it suggests he never really was in Christ in the first place. But
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
27
REGENERATION
sometimes this is precisely what we do need to suggest. Being
in Christ is not just one thing that is operated by just one on/
off switch. The hypocrite is in Christ in one sense, and he is
not in Christ in another. Part of our problem is that we want
to nail too many things down. Tares are in the wheat field, but
they do not partake of ontological wheatness. But when the
pietists beat this drum too loudly, they need to be reminded
that the fruitless branches in John 15 do partake of ontological
branchness.
God is perfect, but He is no perfectionist. He likes to
mess with our heads.
***
Many theological problems are created by turning certain
issues into theological problems. As Yogi Berra might have
said.
One of the central sticking issues in the Federal Vision
stuff is the question of personal regeneration. But this is only a
problem because we are dealing with it on the blackboard, as a
theological problem involving categories. But personal
regeneration is personal, and the most important thing about it
is not its placement in the right category. You must be born
again.
Here is how we stumble. Take a basic truism of Reformed theology— the doctrine of the antithesis. While doing
this, never forget that truisms are true, but also guard against
using the abstracted truth as a shield to guard against the
actual truth. And in this case, here is how it is frequently done.
“I am guarding the antithesis,” a man might solemnly
say, as he haggles over one of his pet doctrines. But what
makes this work? It is the assumption that “the antithesis” is
between righteousness and unrighteousness, abstractly
considered. And since his pet doctrine is on the side of
righteousness, in the same column on the blackboard, in fact,
it must be a faithful representation of the “antithesis.”
But the antithesis is not a theological form of A and not A.
It is not the contrast between right and wrong. It is not
between righteousness and unrighteousness. The antithesis
divides people—the seed of the woman and the seed of the
serpent. We are talking about billions of personal names:
mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, sons, and daughters.
The antithesis is not about abstracted categories at all.
Upholding and defending the antithesis means doing
whatever we can to keep a clear distinction between those
people who walk in the light and those people who, hating
their brother, continue to walk in darkness.
This is where the doctrine of personal regeneration
comes in. I don’t care what you call it—transformation,
28
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3
conversion to God, effectual call, being born again to God—
but this reality is the only thing that will enable us to make
faithful sense of the secular and ecclesiastical worlds around
us.
Now there are two basic ways to mess this up. One is to
deny the antithesis, which is the route of saccharine dogooders, weepy universalists, chagrined hand-wringers, and
other exegetical bed-wetters. The indivisibility of the human
race (their godhead) is assumed, declared, preached, and
exalted. This dogma is then ferociously applied to any who
might call it into question. So this “we are the world” position
is forced to acknowledge that the only divisible segment of the
human race consists of those Christians who blasphemously
posit the divisibility of the human race. Since this sets up a
clear absurdity that their secular apologists cannot solve, these
angular and uncooperative Christians have to be quickly
shouted down, and then frogmarched off for their (taxsupported) Inclusivity Training. This accounts for why the
tolerant and inclusive can become so savage so quickly.
The other error is to affirm but misplace the antithesis.
Some make the antithesis personal, which is good, but they
also make it tribal or racial. This was the error of the Judaizers
in the first century, and is the error of various racialists today.
But others, in defense of orthodoxy, misplace the antithesis by
making it a division of abstract categories. But it is nothing of
the kind. It is the division between those people who are the
seed of the woman and those people who are the seed of the
serpent. These two groups of people have antipathy settled
between them (by the decree of God), and nothing whatever
can be done to dissolve that antipathy in various humanistic or
ecumenical solvents.
Now here is the problem, and this is why the doctrine of
the absolute necessity of the new birth is so important. The
fundamental antithesis is between those who are on their way
to heaven and those who are on their way to hell. We are
invited (in numerous places in the Scriptures) to consider our
earthly lives in the light of our ultimate destinations. The rich
fool is not encouraged to say or think, “Well, I know I am in
hell for all eternity, but for a while there I sure had enough
money to build some bigger barns!” This vantage of eternity
(and only this) gives us genuine perspective on our lives. We
may affirm other doctrinal truths alongside this one, but we
may never mute or diminish the absolute necessity of the new
birth for every son or daughter of Adam. If we lose that battle,
we lose the war.
None of this is being said to take away from the importance of the Church, which is the body of Christ. The
eschatological Church is identical to the company of the elect,
and on that great day, there will be no confusion or blurring of
REGENERATION
our categories at all. But until then, in the mess of history, the
historical Church contains wheat and tares, sheep and pigs,
brothers and false brothers. This means that if we allow
historical categories to trump eschatological ones, we will
wind up offended by the historical antipathy that God settled
between the seed of the woman (in history) and the seed of
the serpent (in history). And if we are offended at what God
has done in this, we will soon be stumbled and offended by
what He has done elsewhere. If we don’t repent of this, we
will not succeed in removing the antithesis which so offends
us—but we might manage to turn coat.
At the same time, those who want to affirm the central
importance of regeneration, but who also want to assert that
they have the power to peer into hearts and determine who
around here is really born again and who not, are preserving an
important truth (the need for personal regeneration), but they
are paying far too high a price. That price is that they have
also introduced the very dangerous sectarian (and—sorry
everybody!—baptistic) impulse into the life of the Church.
We, the Pure and Lovely, consist of “thee and me, and I have
my doubts about thee.”
But those who want to affirm the central importance of
the Church in history, but who also want to act as though if
you are “baptized, it’s all good,” are just begging for marginal
Christianity to take root everywhere. And marginal Christianity is always tare-Christianity, not wheat-Christianity. These
folks are also paying too high a price for the raggedy piece of
the truth that they manage to preserve.
This is why we preach Christ. This is why we preach
Christ crucified. This is why we call all men to be converted to
God, so that they might live faithful and gracious lives—a gift
from the hand of God. This is why we are rightly called
evangelicals. Christ died, was buried, and rose again on the
third day so that we could walk in newness of life.
***
If we hear a word enough, we think we know what it means.
We live in a Christian sub-culture that has strongly emphasized the need to be “born again.” Without denying this need
for regeneration at all, we still have to place the reality of this
in a biblical context, lest we turn it into something entirely
unbiblical—which we have been in great danger of doing.
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of
every creature: For by him were all things created, that
are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by
him all things consist. And he is the head of the body,
the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from
the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence . . . (Col. 1:12–22)
This is a particularly rich text, but in order to see it rightly we
first have to put away an unbiblical set of assumptions.
Whenever we hear the word regeneration, we think of individuals getting saved or not. This is entailed by the biblical
concept of regeneration, and required by it, but if we begin
and end here, we will have a gross distortion of the Bible’s
teaching. The gospel is not limited to the salvation of
atomistic individuals.
The common assumption is that God drops a rope from
heaven, and then the theological debates begin. Pelagians want
to shimmy up the rope, Arminians want to hang on while God
pulls, Calvinists say that God ties the rope to us with one of
His knots, and some of our more severe brethren think He
ties it around our necks. Within the constraints of this debate,
the Calvinists are quite right. But note that something is still
wrong with the entire picture. The illustration itself limits us
in ways the Bible does not. Within those constraints, the
Calvinists are correct, but there is more going on outside those
constraints.
We need to recover an understanding of the glory of the
regeneration, and we begin by looking at what the word
means, and then at how the Bible applies it. Regeneration
refers to rebirth after death. With this in mind, what do we
learn from Scripture about regeneration?
First, Jesus was born again. In our text above, we learn
that Jesus was the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18). Our
father Adam plunged us into a condition of death. Jesus
entered into that Adamic death, and was born again from that
death. The apostle Paul quotes the 2nd Psalm (“Thou art my
Son, this day have I begotten thee”) and applies it to the
resurrection (Acts 13:33). Because Jesus was born again from
the dead, everything else can be born again from the dead.
And this is what we see. Unless Jesus was born again from the
dead, no one else could be born again from the dead. Unless
Jesus was raised from the dead, we are all still in our sins,
which is the same thing as still being in our death.
Second, the entire cosmos was born again. Our text again
says that Jesus was the firstborn of every creature. This
principle of new life was placed at the heart of the cosmic
order, and began to work its way out. “And Jesus said unto
them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me,
in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28). The creation longs for
“Things to be pinned” Volume 19/3
29
REGENERATION
the culmination of this glorious process (Rom. 8:22). The
regeneration referred to here is the regeneration of heaven and
earth, which would not have been possible apart from the
resurrection—the engine of this cosmic regeneration.
And third, Israel was born again. In his famous conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus pressed this particular point. You
(all) must be born again (John 3:7). You are a teacher of
Israel, and you don’t know this? This is what Ezekiel so
wonderfully predicted for Israel (Ez. 36:25-28; 37:11).
Israel was born again, and so we are now members of the new
Israel, the Christian church. The valley of dry bones came to
life, and all Israel stood to its feet.
And finally, John Smith was born again. But we must
place this in its right context. Jesus said “a man” must be born
again if he is to see the kingdom of heaven (John 3:3,5). Our
passage in Colossians descends from the cosmic heights to tell
the Colossian Christians how it was applied to them. After
Christ accomplished the cosmic new birth (v. 20), He brings
this new life to those who had been alienated through sin (v.
21). It is the same here. Without the resurrection, without the
transformation of the heavens and earth, without the reconstitution of the new Israel, there is no such thing as individual
regeneration. We do not say that corporate regeneration makes
individual regeneration superfluous, but rather we say that
corporate and cosmic regeneration makes individual regeneration both possible and mandatory. The world has been
reconciled to God through Christ. Therefore, Paul presses the
point. Be therefore reconciled.
Compare this to getting wet. What difference does it
make how you get wet, just so long as you do? The problem
here has to do with autonomous man’s desire to control and
manage this thing. But Christ has remade the world, and we
cannot control what He is doing. It makes a difference
whether you got wet because someone spritzed a little
moisture in your face or you got wet because the tsunami hit
the beach. The issue of control is always the issue, really. One
of the central features of Christ’s teaching on regeneration is
ignored or twisted by us, because we cannot handle the fact
that God has never been successfully domesticated by man.
The wind blows where it wants, Jesus taught us (John 3:8).
Some people try to bottle the wind—and tell others how to be
born again. Others ignore this by pretending that Jesus must
be talking about gentle zephyrs, playing quietly among the
flowers. But perhaps He wanted us to think about a typhoon.
If our thinking about regeneration begins and ends with
the individual, we will drastically misunderstand the nature of
God’s work in the world. If it never gets down to the individual level, the confusion is just as bad. When a man is
summoned by an evangelist to the new birth, he is not being
summoned into a private chamber, where mysterious things
happen to him as an individual. Rather, the evangelist declares
that Jesus has been born again from the dead. Because Jesus
has been born again from the dead, He is the Lord over all
creation, and all creation, the heavens and the earth, rejoice in
having been made new. God has also raised Israel from the
dead so that a new Israel might be God's nation in this new
creation. The unregenerate individual is told that everything
around him has been transformed, and that he might as well
come along quietly. Behold, the Lord Jesus, the Savior of the
world.
long months had gone by
then internet turmoil from
Samurai Robbins.
Douglas Wilson
30
“Things to be wrastled” Volume 19/3