Is this *gasp* Federal Vision talk?

***greenbaggins*** · #41 (**permalink**) 07-08-2009, 04:42 PM

Austin, Ben is right. Please address the actual arguments.

austinbrown2 · #42 (**permalink**) 07-08-2009, 04:42 PM

Semper,

You said, "I'm puzzled that you believe that Edwards is proposing that final justification has its root in faithfulness."

Didn't say that. Don't believe it.

Brother, please, notice what I was doing in my original post. I was upset with what people were saying about Piper. And I was raising Edwards, with all his "confusing" language, so as to make a point about one specific area of FV talk (especially Douglas Wilson).

Having missed my ambition (which may not have been sufficiently clear and for that I apologize) you want to say that I don't understand Reformed theology. I do. I am simply displaying some sympathy toward those who want to talk about the obedience of faith. I have personally wrestled with the relationship between justification and perserverance for a long time. Most of what I have read has not really wrestled with the issue. It is often the simplistic "We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone." Well, true enough. Edwards probed the question further however. More than anyone I know. And he seems to say some things that echo, in certain ways, what someone like Douglas Wilson has expressed.

Edwards says, "I have shown that the way in which justiciation has a dependence on faith, is, that it is the qualitifacaiton on which the congruity of an interst in the righteousness of Christ depends, or wherein such a fitness consists. But the consideration of the perseverance of faith cannot be excluded out of the congruity for fitness, for it is congrous that he that believes in Christ should have an interest in Christ's righteousness, and o in the eternal benefits purchased by it, because faith is that by which the soul hath union or oneness in Christ; and there is a natural congruity in it, that they who are one with Christ should have a joint interest with him in his eternal benefits; but yet this congruity depends on its being an abiding union."

Note how Edwards begins his discussion (and read the rest). For him, if I am reading him right, he gives full weight to the conditionality of salvation (which includes justification). He is trying to thread together the points I am making about the warning passages and good old Reformed dogmatics regarding justification by faith alone (which he is right on).

I gotto go eat. I'll be back. Sorry, supper is getting cold :-)

I'll explain myself further in a moment.

rbcbob · #43 (**permalink**) 07-08-2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by austinbrown2

Semper,

You said, "I'm puzzled that you believe that Edwards is proposing that final justification has its root in faithfulness."

Didn't say that. Don't believe it.

Brother, please, notice what I was doing in my original post. I was upset with what people were saying about Piper. And I was raising Edwards, with all his "confusing" language, so as to make a point about one specific area of FV talk (especially Douglas Wilson).

Having missed my ambition (which may not have been sufficiently clear and for that I apologize) you want to say that I don't understand Reformed theology. I do. I am simply displaying some sympathy toward those who want to talk about the obedience of faith. I have personally wrestled with the relationship between justification and perserverance for a long time. Most of what I have read has not really wrestled with the issue. It is often the simplistic "We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone." Well, true enough. Edwards probed the question further however. More than anyone I know. And he seems to say some things that echo, in certain ways, what someone like Douglas Wilson has expressed.

Edwards says, "I have shown that the way in which justiciation has a dependence on faith, is, that it is the qualitifacaiton on which the congruity of an interst in the righteousness of Christ depends, or wherein such a fitness consists. But the consideration of the perseverance of faith cannot be excluded out of the congruity for fitness, for it is congrous that he that believes in Christ should have an interest in Christ's righteousness, and o in the eternal benefits purchased by it, because faith is that by which the soul hath union or oneness in Christ; and there is a natural congruity in it, that they who are one with Christ should have a joint interest with him in his eternal benefits; but yet this congruity depends on its being an abiding union."

Note how Edwards begins his discussion (and read the rest). For him, if I am reading him right, he gives full weight to the conditionality of salvation (which includes justification). He is trying to thread together the points I am making about the warning passages and good old Reformed dogmatics regarding justification by faith alone (which he is right on).

I gotto go eat. I'll be back. Sorry, supper is getting cold :-)

I'll explain myself further in a moment.

Austin, I and others more knowledgeable than myself, have sought to advise you that your thinking on justification and contingency are not consistent with the historic Reformed doctrine of salvation. You do not seem to be taking these counsels seriously. Here again are the points that I asked you to consider and which you have not dealt with:

Quote:

You either do not understand the meaning of the word contingent or you do not understand the several components of salvation, i.e. election, calling, regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, etc.

contingent:1.accidental, fortuitous, incidental. 2.conditional, dependent, relative.

Austin,

Please understand that I am not opposed to telling any professing believer that it is absolutely imperative that he persevere in the faith and that if he does not then he will surely spend eternity with the devils and his angels. Herein lies the arena of the if/then variable.

You may place a carefully qualified if/then formula within the doctrine of PERSEVERANCE and not disturb the overall biblical doctrine of SALVATION under which it is subsumed.

However in the doctrines of predestination, regeneration, union-with-Christ, effectual calling, and justification, each of which are likewise subsumed under the overall doctrine of SALVATION, it is contrary to Scripture to predicate contingency of these. They are unilateral sovereign activities of God.

I hope this clarifies.
__________________

austinbrown2 · #44 (**permalink**) 07-08-2009, 05:32 PM

Greenbaggins: I need to streamline this thread. Confessor and I don't communicate well. If it is inflammatory for me to say "keep reading," then ok. I withdraw it for the sake of charity.

-----Added 7/8/2009 at 05:32:05 EST-----

Semper (and all):

Question 73: How does faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?

Answer: Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and his righteousness.

Do you think Edwards contradicts this when he says,

"On the whole, it appears, that the perseverance of faith is necessary, even to the congruity of justification; and that not the less, because a sinner is justified, and perseverance promised, on the first act of faith, but God, in that justication has respect, not only to the past act of faith, but to His own promise of future acts, and to the fitness of a qualification beheld as yet only in His own promise. And that perseverance in faith is thus necessary to salvation, not merely as a sine qua non, or as an universal concomitant of it, but by reason of such an influence and dependence, seems manifest by many scriptures..."

Doesn't this appear to contradict the WLC when it says, "not because of those graces which always do accompany it..."

Now when you say, "Edwards is simply making a point that the Sinner who first believes with evangelical faith will fully and finally believe," I trust you can understand why I have a hard time believing that statement.

Frankly, Edwards can sound confusing. Note how he wraps up:

"So that as was befroe said of faith, so may it be said of child-liek obedience, it has no concern ni justification by any virtue or excellency in it; but only as there is a reception of Christ in it. And this is not more contrary to the apostl's frequent assertion of our being justified without the works of the law, than to say that we are justified by faith; for faith is as much a work, or act of Christian obedience, as the expressions of faith, in spiritual life and walk. And therefore, as we say that faith does not justify as a work, so we say of all these effective expressions of faith."

The language goes back and forth.

But look, maybe I don't understand the FV to the extent of other people here, but when I listen to some, especially Wilson, I get the impression that he is wrestling with the relationship of justification to perseverance. Surely he doesn't sound any more confused than Edwards, right?

And in my own studies, apart from any FV guys or whomever, I am driven to think of the issue in terms of Edwards... and that may make me sound confusing. But only because I think the Scriptures present two pictures that are difficult to bridge.

Is that fair? Ultimately, I'm just saying, hey, it looks like justified saints are warned. They must not commit apostasy. But how is it even possible for them to commit apostasy, I ask? How is that even a threat? Or how could that be a threat given our view of justification? It feels like it is saying, "You cannot be burned, but don't touch that flame or you will be burned."

These are fair questions. And it seems like people want to slam me for raising them and wrestling with them and claim that I'm misguided.

So maybe someone could explain how a justified saint can be threatened with hell? (And I don't find ultimately convincing the argument that makes all the warnings retrospective... as if the warnings only reveal who isn't a Christian.)

***Semper Fidelis*** · #45 (**permalink**) 07-08-2009, 06:19 PM

Austin,

If you want to ask how a person can be threatened with hell for apostasy then you took a very circuitous route to do so.

Which are you trying to establish:

a. that Edwards seems to be saying that justification is somehow contingent upon perseverance (rather than the other way around)
b. that Edwards can be confusing at times
c. that Wilson can be confusing at times
d. that Edwards and Wilson are confusing because, like Edwards, Wilson is one of the most brilliant scholars that America has ever produced.
e. that we cannot simply talk about justification by faith as some sort of abstract doctrine and not exhort Saints to improve upon their baptism?

I'm left puzzled because I engaged the very issue of Wilson and other FV proponents in two other threads and noted that they had valid critiques on modern forms of Reformed thought that have completed neglected the Standard's teaching on the 3rd use of the Law. I noted, as I will again to you, that if people seem to be having trouble finding places that talk about what it means "to work out your salvation with fear and trembling because God is at work in you to will and to do His good pleasure" then I would suggest they haven't read the WCF very carefully and, just as important, haven't read the Larger Catechism (just as a place to start).

FV proponents (and the PG-13 variants like Wilson) always want to paint the problem of Reformed Orthodoxy as the "let's only use Redemptive Historical hermeneutics and never exhort or warn Saints but only tell people what Christ has done". In other words, they haven't really ever critiqued (and in some cases one wonders if they ever really understood) Reformed causistry as it was practiced in an orthodox way. Thus, they lure in the unwitting how think it's either Antinomianism or their version of "Reformed isn't Enough" that will provide meat on what perseverance looks like.

As I said before, it is a false dilemma. It's not either the FV or antinomianism and just because Wilson has something to say about perseverance and you can't seem to find others talking about it doesn't mean our Reformed forebears (except Edwards) were silent about it either.

austinbrown2 · #46 (**permalink**) 07-08-2009, 07:43 PM

Prufrock,

I'm confused with point one. I understand the words, but have no idea how that applies to me. Could you clarify? (Maybe just answer the 4th point. I think that where the substance of the discussion rests).

Point 2: Salvation is not justification. I agree. But as a matter of practical concern, salvation is just as important as justification, existentially speaking. And yes, justification is the verdict of the eschaton brought into the present (which is really good news). I agree. But do you think Edwards is right when he talks about God taking into account our continuation as a property of justifying faith?

Point 3. Again, don't know what you mean.

4. I follow you here. And note it.

You say, "It is inaccurate to say that most of our divines did not wrestle deeply with these issues. Perseverance is a condition of the New Covenant, but this cannot be said properly (that is, a condition a priori) of justification. It is not the fact of perseverance which makes a faith to be a "persevering faith;" rather, it is the fact that it is a "persevering faith" which makes it to persevere. Therefore, as since this faith stands in the relationship of an a priori condition to justification, the perseverance can (at most) stand only in the role of an a posteriori, or a necessary, resultant disposition in the subject."

Well, maybe most did wrestle with it. But then I guess I'm not well read enough. But never mind that. I'm trying to really understand what you mean with the rest of the paragraph.

Point out what is wrong in the following to help clarify:

You excercised faith in Christ and were declared righteous.

God declared you just, having forgiven your sins and imputing the righteousness of Christ to your account.

Now, in your new standing and relationship with God, you must continue to the end, persevering in the faith, or else be damned (Instead of "be damned" maybe we could say "not be saved?" Or, "go to hell" Or "Be condemned?")

Now if it is true that you must continue, then is it right to say that salvation is presently contingent upon abiding in Christ? In other words, there is a condition that must be met in order to obtain the salvation at the end of history (The not yet). And that condition is continuing in the faith.

If there is a condition, then doesn't it mean that, hypothetically speaking, something could be lost? (Note my disitnction concerning the breaking of Jesus' legs. They could have been broken, in one sense, but it was impossible in another sense).

What could be lost? Well, salvation. What is part of salvation? Justification.

Since justification (under the umbrella of salvation) could be lost, not in actual point of coming to pass, but by logical necessity, is it right to say that justification is contingent in some sense?

If not, why not?

See what I'm stabbing at? If God is keeping us, He is keeping us from something. What is that something. Damnation. And that presupposes there is a potentiality, on some level, of damnation. And if there is a potentiality, then it means that our present standing, while secure in the decree of God, is contingent. There could be a counter factual reality. And how would that counter factual reality come to pass? Apostasy. Or to put it another way, not continuing in the faith.

Now if we must continue in the faith, I ask myself, then doesn't obedience slide into the picture? And if obedience slides into the picture, how so? We don't want to say that works are in any sense a ground of justification. Christ is. But if salvation is contingent upon perseverance (which looks a lot like obedience), and if justification could be lost, hypothetically speaking, then it seems that obedience plays an important role.

So, ok, let's say it doesn't change the justification formula. But if a lack of perseverance (ultimately speaking) can have THAT profound an impact on our standing with God, then, well, what shall we say? We can be damned for lack of perseverance?

That's about as clear as I can express myself. Hopefully you can take your nomenclature and adjust it to my language. That would be helpful.

Thanks.

-----Added 7/8/2009 at 07:43:35 EST-----

Semper:

Well, the post has zipped this way and that. Maybe I was too jumbled originally- not focused enough. Here was my thought process that lead me to write it.

I read what people were saying about Piper. It ticked me off. His inviting Douglas Wilson to speak doesn't say anything, in my opinion, about his slipping or whatever. And as I've struggled with justification and perseverance, I ran across Wilson who said a lot of things that made sense to me. Those things that make sense, specifically, warnings and what not, have seemed to cause some to have a cow. Now granted, I know enough about this debate to know that there's a lot more to it than that. But still. If people, I was thinking, have a problem with Wilson, then why not Edwards (on this point)?

So I posted.

I just think Reformed Presbyterians are quick to call people into question if they don't say exactly what they think people should say about justification. Yes, sure, there's a lot of history here. I know. And it is a very, very important doctrine. I agree. But the Bible does have warnings. It does say "work out your salvation" as you point out. I just think the Bible speaks in ways that make some Reformed guys uncomfortable. They hesitate to say it like Paul did (or they say it but then fall back on systematic categories). But, sure, there's nothing really wrong with that. I do it as well. But again, sometimes an apostle just said one side of the coin and left it at that. He didn't feel the need to insert 22 footnotes.

I don't know. It's hard to put in words what I just know to be true by living life.

Anyone is free to disagree. But it's what I have experienced.