[ok, I know it's boring and everyone is tired of this topic, but I had to respond to another false accusation. Forgive me, but I just couldn't help myself]
I’ve been accused (again) of believing that those who are decretally elect can lose their election and also of saying that one can (somehow) become decretally elect during his lifetime, depending upon his faithfulness. Now, I know this sounds crazy. And it sounds crazy because it is (just recall that God’s decrees are fixed and determined before the foundation of the world and it’s pretty easy to see that anyone who affirms such a thing is in a mental state that is beyond imbecilic). But that doesn’t stop theology professors at serious seminaries and pastors who are esteemed for their theological acumen from making such a charge. And, when I deny that I hold the position they’re accusing me of, they respond with the cold, hard evidence – the proof is in writing, they say, and it can’t be denied. Here it is in all its self-evident glory:
The elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect — they are cut off from the Elect One and thus, lose their elect standing. But their falling away doesn’t negate the reality of their standing prior to their apostasy. They were really and truly the elect of God because of their relationship with Christ. (Steven Wilkins, The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons Debating the Federal Vision page 261, lines 292–295)
Well, there you go Wilkins – you’re an imbecile (by your own admission) and need to stay as far away from theology as you can possibly get.
Ok, and I happen to be quite happy to leave the serious theology to those who are far more adept and qualified – but I always thought it was sort of a rule required by the 9th commandment that we try to understand one another’s statements in context. Is that so?
I’ve always assumed it was and that is why I had no qualms about writing what I wrote on page 261 of The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons. I didn’t have any idea anyone would twist my words on page 261 in such a way as to ignore what I said a few lines before on page 260 where I affirm the historic Reformed definition of election and seek to distinguish what I’m talking about in the paper from this historic doctrine (which, by the way, I fully embrace and believe to be totally biblical). Here’s what I said prior to the “horrifying lines” that were quoted by my accuser:
It has been the common practice in Reformed circles to use the term “elect” to refer only to those who are predestined to eternal salvation. Since God has ordained all things “whatsoever comes to pass” (Ephesians 1:11), He has certainly predestined the number of all who will be saved at the last day. This number is fixed and settled, not one of these will be lost. The Lord will accomplish all His holy will. But the term “elect” (or “chosen”) as it is used in the Scriptures most often refers to those in covenant union with Christ who is the elect One. (Steven Wilkins, The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons: Debating the Federal Vision, page 260, lines 240-245, emphasis mine).
Now, you may disagree with the position I try to set forth in the paper. That’s understandable and I was all set for disagreement. What I was not ready for was the accusation that I was denying the historic doctrine of decretal election. I thought I had made it sufficiently clear that I was not dealing with that and I thought any serious reader, making a serious effort to understand what I was saying would not misunderstand. It never entered my mind that fellow Reformed ministers and teachers (of all people) would try to twist what I was saying and misrepresent it. Was this a foolish assumption?
Apparently.
Pastor Wilkins,
You are, of course, right in pointing out how Scripture speaks often of those with a sort of “temporary” or “experiential” election — from which they fall away, depart, apostatize. And the reformed community is NOT used to speaking of these ultimate “apostates” as elect in any sense. Much less in recent Reformed tradition do we speak of these who ultimate depart from Christ and fall away as having any sort of “covenantal-connection” of any substance with Christ. The fact is, the Bible does. Israel had all the marks of the covenant, the Scritpures, prophets, rituals, privileges — and largely rejected Christ, apostatized… (see Jn 15, then Heb 3, 4 & 6)
That the reformed community we all grew up in is STILL overly locked in to an exclusively “decretal” understanding of elect/election is a fact. Apostates are written off without much thought — like baptist back-sliders who “never were ‘really’ converted”. In other words, their baptisms into Christ is assumed all but meaningless, and without any real effect. The only ‘real’ election our modern Reformed community is comfortable talking about is God’s decretal election — anything else make it nervous. Theological individualism (implicitely anti-covenantal) with decisional regeneration have had their baptistic effects.
But a wise Pastor once told me, “It’s not enough for me to speak, Preach (write?) well enough to be understood… I must Preach (and write?) with such clarity that I can not be misunderstood!” Otherwise, the uncareful and uncharitable heresy-hunters will certainly speak foolishly of what they’ve not understood.
David
So you’re saying that I was not clear enough in the paper? Ok, fair enough. But really, I don’t know how to be more clear without becoming unbearably tedious. Remember, the whole context of the discussion was how terms (which have been given highly stipulated definitions in Reformed theology) are used in the Scriptures. Everyone involved acknowledged the stipulated definition of “election” as traditionally understood. And no one disagreed with it. We were talking about how the term was used in the Scripture.
For the life of me, I don’t see why this is such a difficult distinction to make. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
But I guess I’m wrong.
In Order of the Phoenix, Snape tells Harry Potter, “‘You have no subtlety, Potter…You do not understand fine distinctions. It is one of the shortcomings that makes you such a lamentable potion-maker.’
Perhaps something similar could be said theology professors…well, except for the “potion-maker” part.
Sound-byte theology is alive and well I see
Steve, it seems to me that your words were being willfully twisted to suit an agenda. It is shameful, really shameful.
Steve, I come from a Reformed background where my teachers cringe at the sound of the words “Federal Vision.” And I want to say two things: 1) I have read the book “pros and cons” (mentioned in the article above) and I don’t agree with quite a few of the interpretations presented in favor of it, BUT….I think your work and the work of many “Federal Visionists” is exceptionally glorifying to God and a breath of fresh air, and so, when I read the way your accuser(s) above twisted your words out of context, I can imagine why they do what they do and why you responded as you did, and 2) I side with you on this one. I knew what you meant when I read it in context, and I am increasingly losing respect for Reformed theologians who hunt for problems within “Federal Vision” articles.
God bless. I really do love the work that you and your ministries are doing for Christ’s kingdom.
Jon, thanks!
You were also quoted to prove that the FV says “You can’t really have assurance.” They forgot the sentence right before it, though, in which you express concern about assurance being undermined. They said the same thing about Leithart, but didn’t include his explicit affirmation of assurance from the very same page. And then everyone gave each other high fives about how accurate a presentation it was. Huh?
[...] the rest of his post HERE. Tagged as: Context and Pretext, Federal Vision, FV, Steve Wilkins, Wes White Leave a comment [...]
Several years ago I attended part of the trial of a textbook protester in Kanawha County, West Virginia. At one point in the proceedings the judge made the statement “In this courtroom the law is what I say it is.” The truth of the law notwithstanding, this judge would, in a sense, “make” the law while he was on the bench to say whatever he wanted it to say.
Some theologians today operate on the same premise. The truth is what they say it is and no exceptions allowed, no discussion allowed, and if you don’t think like them you are some sort of heretic.
It’s sort of like “The War Between the States was fought over slavery because we say it was. Don’t bother checking out the facts. Just take our word for it.”
Sound familiar?
Al Benson Jr.
Pastor Wilkins,
You are in good company since Jesus was misunderstood too. We should make all effort to be clear (sometimes – parables and proverbs are supposed to be somewhat puzzling) and good men will have the ability to read with charity. Wicked men can’t read. Their eyes get foggy. It is no different with the Constitution. Should we blame Jefferson, et, al for poor sentence structure because men have misread the Constitution? Mr. Rockett, I was unable to tell if you were telling Pastor that his writing was unclear or if you meant to say that he was being clear.
Greetings Pastor Wilkins,
I’ve no dog in this particular fight, but I’ve been watching it from a distance with great interest. I know the FV is about a great deal more than assurance of salvation, but I find it very encouraging to see the FV men emphasize the early Reformation teaching in that area.
The degree of misrepresentation that’s been visited upon you and others smacks of something much bigger than just a misunderstanding or theological crossed wires. You’re up to something important; rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets before you.
Please know there are brothers lifting you up in prayer from afar.
Tim, thanks for this, very encouraging!
Steve/Ed,
Sorry I’m late, as I’ve not seen much of this. But my own post (which I intended and thought to be overwhelmingly supportive of FV and you) “not clear enough” to be understood!
Seems if anything can be misunderstood, it will be, even by those you are trying to support and encourage. Fair enough.
The exhortation I quoted about speaking with such clarity as to not be “misunderstood” is yours Steve — and only intended as a playful reminder that our best efforts and intentions often fail in their objectives.
Perhaps the overwhelming majority of those attacking you and FV are evil, scheming, wicked men who are intentionally twisting your words… I was only allowing for the possibility that some small few were just sincerely confused and that our FV work of making things more and more clear was not completely over. But I guess I was wrong — and there is no possiblity of being more clear? No offense was intended. I’ve publically supported/defended you and FV from day one. No offense was intended atall.
David
oh my. I thought you were speaking about that particular article/paper in that particular book. If you’re talking about the discussion in general, then OF COURSE there is the need to be as clear as possible and always be concerned for any lack of clarity.
But my point was concerned exclusively with the article quoted. I didn’t think that was “unclear” and am completely baffled that anyone could misunderstand the point being made if they actually read the article from start to finish.
And nobody has suggested that all or even most of the critics are “are evil, scheming, wicked men” who are intentionally twisting my words or the words of others. I have no idea what motives the critics might have and I’m absolutely certain that there are a LOT of confused, innocent bystanders. So, if that was your concern, then I completely agree and never have thought otherwise.
Thanks, Mr. Rockett, that is a helpful clarification.
You are most welcome ed.