Sows and corn

One of the most strident voices raised against the Federal Vision is the Green Bagginses blog.  I eventually realized after months of engaging the folks there in biblical argument and debate that it was a waste of my time.

I also found myself in a near constant state of agitation at what was happening with the lynching of Steve Wilkins.  The Rev. Wilkins is one of the best Presbyterian exegetes living today, and he was being forced out of the PCA by Lane Keistner and his gang of exegetical illiterates.  His offence is reading the Bible through the lens of the historical covenants – the Federal Vision.

For a reason that I cannot explain I posted at the Bagginses site this week.  My intention was to remain pure by simply making a comment, and refusing to be drawn into another pointless discussion.  Instead, I found myself interacting on two threads.

I have put my finger on something that may explain the impossibility of an accord between the FV and its Reformed enemies – a crippled and malformed exegesis driven by rigidly systematic, not literary, considerations.

For example, in the parable of the sower, the Lord uses the picture of a plant that grows, but is strangled by weeds and thistles, so that is becomes fruitless.  I pointed out that a plant can only become fruitless if it was fruitful before.  Otherwise we have a meaningless statement.

Keistner’s brilliant reply was to point out that ginomai also means to be, to support his assertion that the plant always was fruitless.

It is true that ginomai san sometimes mean to be, BUT, it depends on the context and the way it is being used.  There was no acknowledgment of this elementary, pre-school, fact.

Keistner’s blanket drag and drop has the effect of turning the parable into a non sequitur: the plant was strangled and it was fruitless.  No link between being strangled and fruitlessness, just strangling of an already fruitless plant.  Why put these two things together if there is no link between them?

Do you see what I mean by crippled exegesis?  Strictly speaking it isn’t exegesis at all, but plain incompetence.

What drives this kind of response is the prior commitment to the doctrinal view that there is no such thing as true apostasy.  There are only two kinds of people in the world – the elect and the rest – and only the elect can ever be called true Christians.  It is impossible under any circumstances for one of the others to be regenerated and bear fruit, and then fall away.

Texts mean nothing, the doctrine is everything.

The result is the pitiful handling of the sacred text that we have seen.  They treat the word of God the way a sow treats a bag of corn, in Martin Luther’s memorable phrase.

William Tyndale’s Federal Vision

William Tyndale was the first man to translate the Bible into English from the Greek and Hebrew texts, instead of the Latin, which is itself a translation.  His introduction to his outstanding New Testament is intended to give the reader a way into the scriptures.

The right way, yea and the only way to understand the scripture unto our salvation, is, that we earnestly and above all thing, search for the profession of our baptism or covenants made between God and us.

Unpacking this just a little, is is clear that our baptism enters us into a covenant with God. Tyndale wishes his reader to grasp the fact that our baptismal covenant involves action both by God and man.  On God’s part he freely and graciously forgives us all our sins and promises us every blessing and gift for the sake of Christ, and on the basis of the cross alone; and for our part we are obliged to forsake evil and turn towards God, to keep his laws and fight against our corrupt nature perpetually, that we may do the will of God every day better and better.

The first part of the covenant, namely, God’s free gifts, are acknowledged by all who identify themselves as Reformed or orthodox Lutheran.

The difficulty for many lies in the second aspect of the covenant – our obedience.

Now if any man that submitteth himslef not to keep the commandments, do think that he hath any faith in God: the same man’s faith is vain, worldly, damnnable, devilish and plain presumption.

Those who apply the law/gospel distinction as extremely and as foolishly as the folks at Green Baggins and their friends will have a little difficulty with Tyndale here, because he goes on to assert that God offers a man mercy on condition that he will mend his living.  Those who have received mercy and grace but refuse to come under the covenant will lose the same mercy and grace.

Where he strikes to the heart of the present controversy is to assert that our continuance in grace is tied directly to our faithfulness to God’s laws:

And let us arm ourselves with this remembrance, that as Christ’s works justify from sin and set us in the favour of God, so our own deeds through working of the Spirit of God , help us to continue in the favour and the grace, into which Christ has brought us; and that we can no longer continue in favour and grace than our our hearts are to keep the law.

So then, our continuing justification is linked to our continuing obedience!  When this simple law is grasped the letter to the Hebrews and James’s epistle become intelligible.