Categories
FV and NPP

On Douglas Wilson and Covenant Children

In a discussion about Covenant Children, Rev. Winzer wrote:

Believing parents are given a prime opportunity to be the means of their children’s conversion. Children of believers are more culpable for their unbelief because they have sinned against means. Believing parents become culpable for their children’s unbelief if they do not provide the means for their children’s repentance.

Concise and elegant as usual.

As critical as I’ve been of Wilson, it is not because I am unfamiliar with his work on the Christian family. I have read a number of his works, even used portions for studies on marriage and child-rearing. It is not all bad and there is some practical wisdom found therein.

Even before I thought Wilson was going in the wrong direction theologically, I would have warned a person to read him with a grain of salt and not completely drink the Koolaid in his writings. When he teaches, it is nigh impossible to distinguish between when he is exegeting a didactic principle from the Scriptures from when he is stating a “seems to me” opinion (however well founded in his own experience). In fact his opinions become the basis for further reflection so the text of Scripture is left even further behind. Because Wilson has no small degree of charisma, not all are able to separate where their consciences ought to be bound and where they shouldn’t.

I honestly don’t believe enough work has been done to link this issue of the family as the real genesis of the whole Federal Vision controversy. It really is the issue of Covenant Children that drives this issue. As has been noted, some of the criticisms of the laxity of Presbyterians regarding their covenant responsiblities is to blame. I would attend the OPC Junior and Senior High retreats a few years ago and only 1-2 out of a crowd of 300 young men and women could fill in the blank on catechism answers. Memorization is not a guarantor of regeneration but it does indicate a lack of family worship and instruction in the home.

Thus, you have Ministers and Elders with many apostate children and Churches that take no action because, after all, “…the children are not elect…”, so what can these men do about it? That attitude is completely contrary to the Word regarding the subject of apostasy. God never blames Himself for unbelief. As Rev Winzer pointed out, He blames the unbeliever and He blames the parents. To say He ordained the reprobation of a child is rather like Adam reminding God that, after all, You gave me this woman. Read Psalm 78, which describes the cycle of apostasy as children are not taught the things of the Lord and then forget Him.

Now, as much as I agree with Wilson that the state of affairs in the Presbyterian Churches is lamentable (and not Reformed in their understanding of parental responsibility) his solution is not the correct one. As with most errors, the course correction is usually tacked too hard. It is my belief that they wanted to link the issue of parental responsibility too much to the nature of salvation as if the nature of God’s election does not include such things as means and our responsibility to obey His Word. In the end, even the best parent will find ample failures on their part that, if weighed in the balance of perfection, would be reason for them to conclude that God does not “owe” them a redeemed child.

It needs to be enough for us to live according to the commands of the Scriptures to train our children (and to enjoin them to obey) without presuming upon the hidden counsel of God and change our Sacramentology and Soteriology to give us more assurance that our efforts will lead to the salvation of our child. In the process, in fact, as they have left the Confessional understanding of such things they have undermined the very Gospel that they should be pointing their children to!

Thus, be wary of Douglas Wilson’s works. Because he has some good things to say in criticism of the modern Reformed Church, his work is very alluring. But because He prefers personal interpretation, converts Proverbs to didactic literature, and his opinions are indistinguishable from his exegesis, he leads his devotees down a path which ultimately abandons our Confessions. We need no more assurance than the true Gospel will provide and creating a category of faithfulness to make us feel better about those intervening years of a child’s development, while we have to wait in faith, is drinking a poisonous Koolaid indeed!

Categories
FV and NPP

Critics of the Critics of the Federal Vision are So Unfair!

I recently read a blog entry at Barlow Farms: A Response to Richard Phillips’s Comments, Part One.

In the words of Mubatu from Zoolander: “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!”

If we ever hope to understand each other then I want to make sure I break down what I believe Pastor Phillips clearly articulated because it is my estimation that this “response” doesn’t even enter into the same neighborhood as the criticism. I ask those who have read both to make sure I’m not stating this improperly.

Here is the substance of the response from Barlow (I’m summarizing):

Pastor Phillips wants to try and convict Pastor Wilkins for not being a strict subscriptionist to only ONE confessional use of the terms election and perseverance. Pastor Wilkins does not deny election or perseverance in the way that the WCF use them and wholeheartedly agrees with them BUT merely denotes that the terms are used in a broader sense.

He goes on to use an analogy of using the word trinity in another way (i.e. “Shadrach, Meschach, and Abegnego made up a trinity of dissent in the empire.”) and then being accused of denying the Trinity.

Thus, according to Barlow, the substance of Pastor Phillips critique is over the use of terms: you cannot use the word election or predestination in any other way than the Confession uses or we’re going to put you up on a pole.

Now, I ask the critics of the critics of the FV: Does this accurately represent Pastor Phillips critique? I thought Pastor Phillips was very cogent in his analysis. I’m constantly told that men are not dealing honestly with each other’s views. If there is going to be a response to Pastor Phillips’ critique then let it be on the substance of the critique.

The substance of Pastor Phillips’ critique is this:

*BEGIN*

Neither the Scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a doctrine of conditional election.

Neither the Scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary perseverance.

Neither the Scirptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary union with Christ.

*BREAK*

You see, it one thing to admit that the Scriptures use a term to address a larger body that includes both elect and non-elect. It is quite another to form a doctrine based on this syllogism:

1. Paul calls a Church body “elect” in some passages
2. Paul knew it consisted of both the regenerate and unregenerate
3. Therefore, Paul must mean that everyone there is elect in some way…

Barlow seems to completely miss the fact that Pastor Phillips convincingly demonstrates that the Reformed completely reject this in their confession. They do NOT conclude 3 in the way that Wilkins and others do and, on the contrary, reject the idea.

Would they admit to points 1 and 2 above? Certainly, they would believe it is Pastoral language. This is why there is the idea of presumptive regeneration where you treat and talk of people as if they are regnerate not knowing either way. Jesus still treated Judas as if he were a disciple when He knew from the beginning who truly believed even before He called Judas.

Thus, I find Barlow’s response to utterly obfuscate the critique. I thought Pastor Phillips critique was a scholarly and clear examination of the issue and am shocked that Barlow so utterly misrepresents the substance of the critique.

Are there any responses out there that do a better job of answering the actual charges?

Categories
FV and NPP

An Open Letter to the Federal Vision

I’ve decided to post this here to formulate more clearly a thought that has been slowly developing over time given the controversy.

I readily admit that I have dear friends who are sympathetic to the Federal Vision and take great umbrage, at times, that I have criticized those who are most visible in the movement.

I was reading the comments on Dr. Clarks blog post here.

The consistent refrain from Pastor Wilson and others who defend him is this: Critics of the FV are slanderous. The FV believes in all the right Reformed stuff, we’re told. I have to admit that I become concerned that some might be guilty of mischaracterization. I wonder, after almost 5 years, why nobody can get it right!

Let’s all pretend, for the moment, that the Federal Vision is correct in their insistence that they are orthodox and Reformed. Let’s assume that all scrutiny suddenly disappears and all are found orthodox. Let’s go further and turn the tables for a bit and pretend that the FV is in the mainstream and it is the rest of us who are the true quasi-Reformed and we must defend our position.

Here’s the question: What do we believe that is out of accord with Reformed or Biblical orthodoxy?

Surely this whole debate isn’t about us all being the same and all you’re arguing for is the right to use different words to believe the same thing. You’re not simply arguing for the right to quit being misrepresented are you? You haven’t divided Church against Church and disrupted every Conservative Reformed denomination simply to have us agree that you are Reformed just like we are, are you? Surely you must be arguing AGAINST something that we believe in. I shudder to think that so much division has been caused over semantics and your unwillingness just to use the same terms as we.

Perhaps it would clarify what you are FOR by criticizing the rest of us and telling us what you are against. Please, please, somebody in the FV camp step forward and write an article that accurately describes what we quasi-Reformed believe and then critique it. I’m sure you would understand our sensitivity to being accurately represented after all.

I think if we could determine where you believe that we are unorthodox it might help us to understand what you’re for and why you believe this fight is worthy of so much disruption within the Body of Christ.