A Retraction

Not open for further replies.


Puritanboard Commissioner
Being a Baptist, I really don't a dog in this hunt; the dog is still sitting on the porch making sure a stranger doesn't come into our yard. But having read Lane's retraction (and noting that Wilson did not deal with faith and faithfulness, as Rich pointed out), I can't help but see a troubling similarity to Roman Catholicism. Or is it just me?
We all have a dog in this hunt.

The historic Protestant (evangelical) doctrine of sola fide, and justification by faith in Christ's righteousness alone are at stake.

While Mr. Calvin said the Scripture teaches the law is a mirror of what the Christian life should look like, he never said our obedience to it was, in any sense, a basis of our justification before a Holy God.

This is not even distinctly reformed.:)
I think the RB has less to worry about from FV because our confession makes Christ's active obedience very clear:

LBC 11:1 Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.
It is hard to imaging the FV trying to get over the fence and into our yard.
Maybe this is an oversimplification, perhaps even a benefit of not having had the sophisticated argumentation of some theologians, but this has always been clear to me.

When the Westminster Standards use the term "obedience" it means the whole of Christ's obedience, which includes both His active and passive obedience.

Because Christ obeyed God, He met God's perfect standard of righteousness, and faith in that saves us.

'Federal vision' at best, would confuse this simple truth, which undermines God's promises and our assurance. At worst, it denies it.

Few things could be more damaging than that.


Puritan Board Doctor
There is a tendency in sinful human nature to gravitate from the objective Gospel to religious subjectivism, to shift the central focus from Christ to Christian experience.
The truth of that statement is profound. The local quasi-FV congregation is full of folks who are there not because they understand the implications of the theology, but because they like the 'atmosphere'. Sadly though, that is true even of my own Church.
Not open for further replies.