Monthly Archives: July 2008

Tom Hicks on my plea to not be afraid of Hebrews

In a rejoinder to this post I wrote, a blogger writes:

The eternally elect persevere to the end and inherit eternal life, but not all regenerate, justified, and adopted Christians are eternally elect; therefore, non-eternally-elect Christians always fall away.

But I never said that these who fall away were truly regenerate, justified, or adopted.  I often use these three terms often (take regenerated as “effectually called”) in the way the Westminster Confession uses the terms.  In this sense they cannot be claimed of the non-elect.  It is true that I sometimes find the Bible’s language is more elastic than the way we use our terms (Does diakonos mean Minister of the Gospel, the special office of Deacon, or a more generic “servant” so that it can be applied to a woman without violating other Scriptures? Just because the Bible uses the word in these many ways does not mean that there can be no need and permission to use the word for the office of Deacon.)

In short, I don’t believe that the non-elect have received all the same benefits as the elect except that they are not upheld in perseverance.  No, the only thing necessary for my post to work, is that the elect and non-elect have some identical gifts described by the author of Hebrews. This is not some new view, as I tried to point out, but is what the Westminster Assembly declared to be “common operations of the Spirit” (which I take to mean common to elect and non-elect) using Hebrews 6 as a prooftext for these common works of God’s Holy Spirit.

This doesn’t mean that the writer is wrong in declaring that we disagree.  Looking at his use of Biblical texts I think there is room for some discussion.  But I do not, in point of fact, believe or teach that “not all regenerate, justified, and adopted Christians are eternally elect.”  They all are.  On that point we agree.

Is sanctification a means to the goal of eternal life?

According to Chad Van Dixhoorn’s excellent lecture on the debates over imputation at the Westminster Assembly, Vines made a statement that was closer to Roman Catholicism than Protestantism. Vines, in opposing the need for the imputation of the active obedience of Christ claimed that the difference between being restored to the state of innocence, and being admitted into glory, was more properly covered by sanctification rather than justification.

I don’t agree with Vines’ statement as summarized or quoted by Van Dixhoorn, but I do think this represents another point where it seems like current PCA intellectual leadership, or popular PCA teaching, is smoothing and correcting the actual faith we find articulated in the documents that are supposed to be our doctrinal standards.

Consider: Benedict Pictet was translated and published by the Presbyterian Sunday School Board in the 1800s for the edification of readers. While some portions were expurgated and some rated a footnote of disagreement, this was allowed to stand as Presbyterian teaching:

As to the necessity of good works, it is clearly established from the express commands of God–from the necessity of our worshipping and serving God–from the nature of the covenant of grace, in which God promises every kind of blessing, but at the same time requires obedience–from the favors received at his hands, which are so many motives to good works–from the future glory which is promised, and to which good works stand related, as the means to the end, as the road to the goal, as seed-time to the harvest, as first-fruits to the whole gathering, and as the contest to the victory

So good works are instrumentally related to entering into eternal glory. It is hard to imagine this being published today. Yet it sounds quite like what we find in the Westminster Confession on good works, as well as in Scripture.

Chapter 16:

These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

The Confession is translating the contemporary English translation of First Corinthians 6.22. Here it is in context:

20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The Westminster Confession teaches that personal holiness (sanctification) is the means to the end, which is eternal life. That sounds somewhat similar to what I understand Van Dixhoorn to be claiming that Vines said.

So while I’m not willing to endorse what Vines may have said, it does strike me that Vines and others who agreed with him to some extent had more influence on the Westminster Confession and Catechisms than people today would be fully comfortable with. Yet how can one use words correctly and criticize the Westminster Standards for not being Protestant enough? I don’t see how. The Westminster Assembly was a council that defined Reformed Protestantism, at least officially. It is Protestant by definition.

But read the Westminster Confession some time, and both Catechisms, and ask yourself if it does not, in places, seem more Roman Catholic than Protestant by the standard of modern Evangelical expectations. Perhaps it is time to have a new council and purify the documents of what we now see as Roman Catholic tendencies. Or maybe the documents contain wisdom that might pull us back from false and unnecessary polarizations in doctrine that were never the teaching the Protestant Reformation in the first place..

Simply admitting the discrepancy between us and the Westminster divines would be a necessary first step to making any progress one way or the other.

Adoption & Glory

Proponents of requiring a belief of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly asked if being restored to the position of Adam in the garden was sufficient to inherit eternal life. Gataker, who opposed IAO, agreed that it was not sufficient. But he claimed that it was adoption, not justification, that covered the gap between the two positions.

When Turretin covered “Adoption” in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology he insisted that Adoption was really nothing else but the positive aspect of justification, related to the imputation of Christ’s active obedience.

And it seems to me that, even if we disagree with Turretin’s classification, we would still have to see imputation as the explanatory mechanism for adoption–Christ’s status as son of the resurrection is imputed to believers.

Can’t keep a good man down forever, but God allows it for longer than you would like

Story of Joseph, the first:

Joseph is given a garment and authority.  The garment is taken away from him and used as false evidence that he is dead.  He is sold into slavery.

Story of Joseph, the second:

Joseph is given authority over Potiphar’s house.  But he refuses the wife’s seductions.  She takes away his garment and uses it as false evidence that he tried to rape her.  Joseph is thrown into Potiphar’s prison (Potiphar must have known Joseph was innocent).

Story of Joseph, the third:

Joseph is given authority over the prison and thus takes care of two special royal prisoners.  He demonstrates to the one who is restored to his high position that he can interpret dreams.  He begs for help but the official forgets his promise and leaves him in prison.

We don’t get final resoluton to the story until after two more years pass.  Then Joseph gets clothed with authority over the whole world.  But it takes a long time to get their.

And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.