The Federal Vision and the Doctrine of Assurance - Page 2

MOSES · #41 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 06:31 PM

Note:

One thing to remember in this topic is the difference between "perseverance" and "assurance."

Perseverence is God's view and will towards us (it is soley the work of God). Assurance is our view of our ourselves towards God.
Thus.. perseverance is necessary in salvation. Without the "P" in tulip, there is no salvation.

Is assurance a requirement?

KMK · #42 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

Perhaps..

But this is not something he invented entirely, others have taken similar notice.

Here is a quote from another man:

David Bickel (yea...he is a Lutheran, but my point is still the same)

Again...is the FV advocating something new...or have other Reformed folks (including some puritans) went down this path before.

I agree that many have 'strayed from the Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves.' But that would mean that they do not represent 'reformed' thought. They are no longer 'reformed' because they have strayed. Yes?

First, let me say this. I think the quote, which you copy in your question, is coming from the position that Lutheranism is the Reformed faith...That the puritans have strayed because of the emphais on works.
(Is there not a real and historical debate that Lutherans can do as they please, e.g., live like the devil, beause their assurance is in the gospel alone,,,but the Calvinist rejected that and said no "we must work our our salvation. . ." and emphasized good works...?)

note: I quoted David Beckel above to show that others see Calvinists and puritans as looking to works for assurance...and I did that to show that Max Weber is not the only one.
Heck...I even seen a documentary on the reformation that taught that many in the Calvinist camp looked to works for assurance..
MY whole point is that this is not new with the FV.

KMK
To answer your question...I would say NO, as it relates to the quote. Puritans who placed an emphasis on works in assurance were not suddenly "non-reformed" because of that emphasis, imo.

I agree that I don't want to get into a discussion of what is and what is not 'reformed' as so often happens on this board.

However, is it really fair to characterize the Puritan view as placing an emphasis on works similarly to the FV? It seems to me the Puritans placed an emphasis on the desire for works that flows from faith as a point of assurance. The emphasis was on 'endeavoring' to do good works and not on the works themselves. Hence LC Q 80:

Quote:

Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?

A. Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him,

Quote:

And WLC 18:III. This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it:[10] yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.[11] And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure,[12] that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience,[13] the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.

It seems to me that the confession teaches that our 'giving all diligence to make his calling and election sure', grows out of our attaining the infallible assurance of faith.

From the Sum of Saving Knowledge:

Quote:

THE EVIDENCES OF TRUE FAITH.

SO much for the laying the grounds of faith, and warrants to believe. Now, for evidencing of true faith by fruits, these four things are requisite: 1. That the believer be soundly convinced, in his judgment, of his obligation to keep the whole moral law, all the days of his life; and that not the less, but so much the more, as he is delivered by Christ from the covenant of works, and curse of the law. 2. That he endeavour to grow in the exercise and daily practice of godliness and righteousness. 3. That the course of his new obedience run in the right channel, that is through faith in Christ, and through a good conscience, to all the duties of love towards God and man.

It seems the Puritans focused assurance on a right heart condition in regards to works and not the works themselves. I am no expert on the FV, but can the same be said of their doctrine of 'covenantal obedience'? If the FV says, "Look to your baptism" (as some say) that is different than when the Puritans said, "Look that you are soundly convinced of your obligation to keep the whole moral law."

------

BTW, does this quote in the post by Poimen sound strange?

Quote:

"by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."

Is he saying, "We are baptized, therefore we are elect?" I thought we were elect and therefore we are baptized into Christ.

MOSES · #43 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

"by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."

Is he saying, "We are baptized, therefore we are elect?" I thought we were elect and therefore we are baptized into Christ.

I am perty positive that Wilkins is not speaking about the decree's of God, as laid out in the wcf, in his use of the word "elect". He is speaking about visible election (which the scriptures, according to wilkins, make this distinction as well)...hence the "by baptism"...which is also visible.

Visibly speaking...we are elect because we are baptized.
Concerning the decrees of God, we are baptized because we are elect (providence playing a role in that).

Note: I don't see a problem with this.

MOSES · #44 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 06:59 PM

KMK

Concerning the FV and the puritan emphasis on works in assurance:

I have not done enough research of the FV to make the comparison. At this stage in the game, with my limited knowledge of the FV, I am not sure that there is that big of a difference between "covenant faithfullness" and the puritans emphasis of "good works".

But if anyone can help me see the "bigness" of the difference, it would be greatly appreciated.

Hippo · #45 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

KMK

Concerning the FV and the puritan emphasis on works in assurance:

I have not done enough research of the FV to make the comparison. At this stage in the game, with my limited knowledge of the FV, I am not sure that there is that big of a difference between "covenant faithfullness" and the puritans emphasis of "good works".

But if anyone can help me see the "bigness" of the difference, it would be greatly appreciated.

A big difference is that the puritans did not conflate election to the church with election to decretal salvation.

The puritans understood that we do good works because (and indeed if) we are elect, there is no question of us being elect because we do good works, even if such works are only possible through the work of God in our lives.

MOSES · #46 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

KMK

Concerning the FV and the puritan emphasis on works in assurance:

I have not done enough research of the FV to make the comparison. At this stage in the game, with my limited knowledge of the FV, I am not sure that there is that big of a difference between "covenant faithfullness" and the puritans emphasis of "good works".

But if anyone can help me see the "bigness" of the difference, it would be greatly appreciated.

A big difference is that the puritans did not conflate election to the church with election to decretal salvation.

The puritans understood that we do good works because (and indeed if) we are elect, there is no question of us being elect because we do good works, even if such works are only possible through the work of God in our lives.

How does this show up, or what does this matter, in each of their doctrines on ASSURANCE?

MOSES · #47 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippo

A big difference is that the puritans did not conflate election to the church with election to decretal salvation..

Do you have some info that shows that this is what the FV actually teaches, i.e., election to the church is the same as (fused together) election with Christ?

I thought they simply taught the defintion of election being EITHER/OR .. election to the Church (via sacraments) is a visible form of election,,but is NOT election in the same sense as the eternal decree of God, as it is laid out in the wcf.

Hippo · #48 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

KMK

Concerning the FV and the puritan emphasis on works in assurance:

I have not done enough research of the FV to make the comparison. At this stage in the game, with my limited knowledge of the FV, I am not sure that there is that big of a difference between "covenant faithfullness" and the puritans emphasis of "good works".

But if anyone can help me see the "bigness" of the difference, it would be greatly appreciated.

A big difference is that the puritans did not conflate election to the church with election to decretal salvation.

The puritans understood that we do good works because (and indeed if) we are elect, there is no question of us being elect because we do good works, even if such works are only possible through the work of God in our lives.

How does this show up, or what does this matter, in each of their doctrines on ASSURANCE?

Because to the FV assurance of temporal salvation is what man is able to obtain and good works play a part in salvation (albeit good works that are the product of God's grace).

Hippo · #49 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippo

A big difference is that the puritans did not conflate election to the church with election to decretal salvation..

Do you have some info that shows that this is what the FV actually teaches, i.e., election to the church is the same as (fused together) election with Christ?

I thought they simply taught the defintion of election being EITHER/OR .. election to the Church (via sacraments) is a visible form of election,,but is NOT election in the same sense as the eternal decree of God, as it is laid out in the wcf.

I agree, they do not see it as election in the same sense, but when they use the term election you never know which they are referring to (as we have seen in some of the quotes in this thread with regards to election).

In this way the concepts are conflated, the confusion almost appears to be deliberate as instead of being seen as different concepts they are seen as a hierarchy.

MOSES · #50 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

How does this show up, or what does this matter, in each of their doctrines on ASSURANCE?

Because to the FV assurance of temporal salvation is what man is able to obtain and good works play a part in salvation (albeit good works that are the product of God's grace).

Ok..for the FV assurance of salvation is what man is able to obtain.
What is wrong with that? Does not the confession speak of that? There would be no such thing as assurance without man "obtaining" it.

Ok...And good works play a part in salvation.
I have never heard an FVer teach this...Do you have a particular person in mind when you say that the FV say this?

Note: if "play a part" means, the fruit of salvation,,,then I would agree...but if "play a part" means the means of salvation, then I would disagree.

Also...I am here to learn, not to defend...so lay it on me.

HaigLaw · #51 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 08:13 PM

I have not understood all the subtle nuances in the back and forth discussions, but on the original question of this thread, no, I don't see how they can have any assurance.

MOSES · #52 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

I have not understood all the subtle nuances in the back and forth discussions, but on the original question of this thread, no, I don't see how they can have any assurance.

Do you have assurance?

Please tell me how your assurance then differs from theirs. You can have assurance of salvation, but, in your opinion, you cannot see how they (FV) can have assurance...Tell me why.

armourbearer · #53 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

So, if the promises of God are signed and sealed in baptism (HC QA 66), can we not speak of baptism as being part of our assurance? Not that baptism is our salvation, but that baptism is the sign and seal of God's promises, which, when met with faith, are our salvation. As a pastor, I have encouraged my people to consider the promises of God signed and sealed in baptism and, believing those promises, to have assurance and confidence.

What do you think?

Very well observed. Traditionally Word and Sacraments as means of grace were regarded as the objective marks of assurance, and the inward grace wrought by the Spirit as manifesting itself in subjective marks. The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to baptism as efficacious in and of itself without pressing the need to observe whether the grace signified does in fact reveal itself in those evidences of a distinguishing work of God's Spirit.

Semper Fidelis · #54 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

So, if the promises of God are signed and sealed in baptism (HC QA 66), can we not speak of baptism as being part of our assurance? Not that baptism is our salvation, but that baptism is the sign and seal of God's promises, which, when met with faith, are our salvation. As a pastor, I have encouraged my people to consider the promises of God signed and sealed in baptism and, believing those promises, to have assurance and confidence.

What do you think?

Very well observed. Traditionally Word and Sacraments as means of grace were regarded as the objective marks of assurance, and the inward grace wrought by the Spirit as manifesting itself in subjective marks. The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to baptism as efficacious in and of itself without pressing the need to observe whether the grace signified does in fact reveal itself in those evidences of a distinguishing work of God's Spirit.

Ding! Ding!

You'll hear an FV proponent trumpet the idea that if someone asks them if they're elect they can say, unreservedly, "Yes, you were baptized."

To be baptized into the visible Church is to become elect (in a sense) because the person is now in the Covenant and to be in the Covenant is to be in Christ and united to Christ (in a sense). What maintains that union with Christ? Continued faithfulness.

This turns everything completely on its head.

While the Sacrament does, in fact, confer membership in the visible New Covenant, there is nothing that the Church does to unite a person to Christ. The instrument that procures that blessing is faith alone. Only those that have Evangelical faith, born from above, receive the actual grace signified by baptism.

How then the comfort to the believer in the Reformed schema?

Because the baptism does not point to the recipient in baptism (something the FV and Baptists have in common from different angles). Baptism is not saying that all who are baptized receive all the graces signified by baptism or that what is signified must be true of those baptized. What it does is Promise those graces to those that have faith.

By looking at my baptism in the Reformed manner, I'm able to remember the Promise of God and then examine whether I have, indeed, believed the Gospel as the Scriptures reveal Christ. My assurance is then grounded by the evidences of Evangelical faith and the Promise of God announced in my baptism assures me with the ground of God's Immutability.

In contrast, by looking at my baptism in the FV manner, I merely know that every Tom, Dick, and Harry that's baptized into the Church is elect (for now) just like me. I can look to my faithfulness now that says that I'm still faithful and haven't left the Covenant and so I'm certain to be saved in the future provided I never leave the Covenant. The introspection in this scheme is not to see a definitive evangelical work that is clinging to Christ in His finished work but an introspection that clings to progress in sanctification. I know I'm still in the Covenant today so I'm saved. I know I'm faithful to the Covenant today so the graces that signify baptism are true of me today.

In the Reformed view, assurance is grounded on the basis of the evidence of simple trust and an immutable Promise. The FV view grounds assurance in my faithfulness today that may or may not be vindicated in the future. I'll find out I'm elect at the Judgement throne.

toddpedlar · #55 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

How does this show up, or what does this matter, in each of their doctrines on ASSURANCE?

Because to the FV assurance of temporal salvation is what man is able to obtain and good works play a part in salvation (albeit good works that are the product of God's grace).

Ok..for the FV assurance of salvation is what man is able to obtain.
What is wrong with that? Does not the confession speak of that? There would be no such thing as assurance without man "obtaining" it.

Ok...And good works play a part in salvation.
I have never heard an FVer teach this...Do you have a particular person in mind when you say that the FV say this?

Note: if "play a part" means, the fruit of salvation,,,then I would agree...but if "play a part" means the means of salvation, then I would disagree.

Also...I am here to learn, not to defend...so lay it on me.

What works of the FV crowd have you read / are you reading? You can find this teaching in "The Federal Vision", edited by Wilkins, for starters, and Norman Shepherd's books as well. Another resource in which you can see this kind of thinking is the Federal Vision, Pro & Con, edited by Calvin Beisner. Rich Lusk is, in my opinion, the worst offender when it comes to teaching distinctly that works are regarded as part of our 'salvation qualification'. Mark Horne is just as committed to this position.

MOSES · #56 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Traditionally Word and Sacraments as means of grace were regarded as the objective marks of assurance, and the inward grace wrought by the Spirit as manifesting itself in subjective marks. The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to baptism as efficacious in and of itself without pressing the need to observe whether the grace signified does in fact reveal itself in those evidences of a distinguishing work of God's Spirit.

questions:

Baptism is efficacious...right?

Baptism (the efficacy of) is conferred by the Holy Ghost....right?

Does the grace have to be "revealed"...or does it just have to belong to those who "that grace" belongeth?

An infant does not "reveal", nor do people "observe", the grace that is effective in baptism, yet it still really belongs to those to whom grace is promised...right?

My questions arise from here:

WCF 28

Quote:

6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

[u]The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to baptism as efficacious in and of itself without pressing the need to observe [it]

How doe the WCF 28 relate to this statement...How is the FV so far removed from this? How is the FV a problem, again?

Sorry for my slow learning...I just don't get it.

MOSES · #57 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

[What works of the FV crowd have you read / are you reading? .

I have not read any works/books of the FV crowd...I have read works of the FV advesaries...(like the opc report)...but that only caused me to have more questions. Note: I found myself agreeing with some of the things that the opc accused the FV of...
That is why this topic is a big deal to me.

Note: I had never heard of "theonomy" until someone called me one. I then had to do the research myself. Come to find out, my view of theonomy was never taught to me, I just simply came up with my position from studying the scriptures.

Again...some of the things that people accuse the FV of...are things I have learned myself in studying the scriptures and confession.

That is why I am so curious.

Note: I have listened to steve wilkins examination.