A RESPONSE TO LIGON DUNCAN

Ligon Duncan, a leading voice in the American PCA, has made six criticisms of the FV to a UK publication.  I think that he has provided us with a handy summary of the main issues. He said:

The embrace of FV could be promotive of:

(a) an unhealthy and unbiblical sacramentalism;
(b) a confusion over the nature of justification and of saving faith;
(c) an externalism and formalism;
(d) a loss of assurance;
(e) an undermining of the doctrine of the new birth;
(f) a reconstructionist approach to Christian cultural engagement and more.

Here is my response.

a)  SACRAMENTS

The difference is not between a healthy and an unhealthy sacramentology, but between a sacramentology and an empty sign non-sacrament.  How does one say this gently?  The problem with Ligon Duncan and others like him is that they do not have a recognizable sacramentology at all, never mind a healthy one.

Anyone who is an evangelical, or an ex-evangelical, knows that they do not have sacraments.  They have empty signs that do not do what they signify.  That is a touchstone of evangelical orthodoxy, and it has infiltrated the Reformation churches from the Baptists.

This is an area where the Reverend Duncan and his friends need to admit that they are out of accord with the Reformation and their own confessions.  Step two is to repent, and embrace a proper biblical sacramentology.

b)  JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE

It is true that many FV men are confused about justification and saving faith.  I believe that the teaching of Norman Shepherd is partly responsible.  He is held in high regard for his obvious exegetical gifts, but I believe that he has erred in the matter of the justification of the wicked.  I believe that he has confused what James says about the justification of the righteous that is by works, with Paul’s doctrine of the justification of the wicked that is apart from works.

At the same time, there are many FV men who are not in the least bit confused.  They believe, hold, expound, and teach that a sinner is justified by faith alone, apart from the works of the law, and they uphold the absolute distinction between law and faith in this most important matter.

Where they have erred is on not defending themselves vigorously enough.

At the same time I do not believe that the NAPARC, or their UK counterparts, have the correct doctrine of sola fide.  What they have is a baptistic perversion of it that the Reformers anathematized.  Do they know this?  Some of them do, but it is my view that most evangelical Pastors are unaware of the actual Reformation doctrine.

Here it is.  A man is justified by faith alone, apart from the law, whether the law of God or man.  On that all agree.  The NAPARC error lies in the method of its application to the repentant sinner, or, the proper means of grace.

An accurate representation of the semi-Protestant doctrine of sola fide states that, the vilest offender who truly believes, that moment form Jesus a pardon receives.

Paul the Apostle did not receive his forgiveness the moment that he believed on the Damascus Road!  He had to wait three days, until Ananias commanded him to wash away his sins in baptism!

The Protestant, biblical doctrine is that justification is ordinarily received in baptism, which is the usual means of grace, since, as the Creed states, I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. The scriptures provide us with only one example of a man who was justified apart from a sacrament, and that was Abraham.  Therefore we do not handcuff God to the sacrament.  However, ever since the great Abraham, his successors have received their forgiveness through the sacrament of circumcision, which was replaced by Christ and John the Baptist with baptism.

Therefore, Ligon Duncan and his friends have a baptistic doctrine of justification that the Reformers to a man rejected.  It is unbiblical and unconfessional.

There is another very important point to be made on this subject.  How many NAPARC or FIEC Pastors preach and teach sola fide?   Do not the majority preach decisional salvation?  Isn’t that salvation by works?  It is indeed!  Perhaps NAPARC needs to get its house in order on sola fide before attacking others.

c) FORMALISM

Does the FV promote externalism and formalism?  If formalism means forms of worship without regard to inner significance, then simply reading the FV literature will put the troubled mind to rest.  The FV men are deeply concerned about the inner significance of Baptism and the Supper.  They are not ritualists. They are protesting against baptisms and communion services that deny the inner significance of the sacraments!

Indeed, formalism is a criticism that the FV levels against the modern Reformed churches.  When a baptism is performed, and the minister denies that anything spiritual is happening, indeed, that the remission of sins is not being ministered, it is formalism.  The inner meaning of the sacrament is denied.  When a communion is administered, and the Pastor denies that Christ’s body and benefits are being conveyed to the believing man, it is formalism, because the inner meaning and reality is being denied.

In most Reformed Churches today formalism is orthodox doctrine – if not formally, then actually.

d) A LOSS OF ASSURANCE

I suspect that the Reverend Duncan is speaking of the FV observation that the scriptures speak of the reality that some of those who come to a justifying faith can and do fall away.  He is probably an advocate of the once-saved-always-saved school of thought.

Federal Vision men point out that the entire letter to the Hebrews is an extended warning against apostasy, that is, falling away from Christ.  They see that Hebrews’ threats of vengeance against disloyalty to Christ are not empty, as the OSAS people teach, who vehemently insist that they are means of grace to the elect, who through them persevere infallibly, because they cannot fall away.

Instead, the inspired writer gives historical examples such as the wilderness generation.  The enslaved Israelites believed when Moses commanded them to eat the Passover Lamb, they believed in God when he destroyed the pursuing Egyptian army, but they fell when they refused to enter Canaan for fear of the enemy.  They had once believed, but fell through later unbelief.

We are exhorted not to follow their poor example, and be damned as they were.

In all fairness, there are many godly exegetes who have taken the view that it is impossible to fall away from a true justifying faith.  More than that, they have probably been in the majority over the centuries. However, there are others who have believed just as strongly in absolute predestination who have taken the view that some of those with true faith can and do fall.  Great names such as Augustine and Prosper come t mind.  The English Delegation to the Synod of Dort made this same point, and urged the divines to leave room within the Reformed tradition for both readings.

In any case, the fifth point of TULIP is that those who persevere to the end will be saved, not that all who have believed will necessarily persevere to the end.  The test and sign of true faith is perseverance, not faith itself.

e)  UNDERMINING THE NEW BIRTH

This accusation is about the FV observation that regeneration in the Bible is connected to baptism as the means of the new birth.  Baptism is the laver of regeneration, the rite in which Christ circumsizes our hearts and makes us new.  Evangelicals deny this with a passion, but it is Reformation doctrine, enshrined in all of its confessions, based upon sure and certain warrants of scripture.

Is it possible to undermine the new birth by explaining it the way the Bible does?  If so, the scriptures themselves undermine the new birth, which is patently absurd.  No, the Bible links the new birth to our baptism into Christ, and the Federal Vision is drawing attention to this fact.

f) RECONSTRUCTIONISM

The men within the Federal Vision conversation have not adequately made it clear that they believe that the Law of Moses has been abolished.  This is a weakness.  Perhaps they regard it as too obvious to mention.  Be that as it may, there is a clear necessity to reaffirm this point of New Testament doctrine in no uncertain terms.  What they do attempt is to try to apply the general equity of the Mosaic laws to modern society, not the specifically Jewish laws.  Is that an error?  If Christ is Lord of all the nations of the earth, and his holy laws are a light to those in darkness, then they must be applied and obeyed by the rulers of the earth.  That too is Reformation orthodoxy.

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.