The next Tabletalk article (October issue) is on the history of the covenant (pg 8-11, and is also quite good. It seems to turn into a brief against Federal Vision people, though. Here is the end:
"According to them [Fed Vis guys], every baptized person is elect and united to Christ through baptism, but this election and union can be forfeited through faithlessness."
I haven't read many FV guys - mainly just one. But I would agree with the above quote if the words elect and election were removed. We are baptized into union with Christ, but can be broken off if we don't bear fruit (John 15). This doesn't mean we were saved or elect, just part of the visible church for a while. This is probably is a bit more "high view of sacraments" than most Reformed people are comfy with - majority would say baptism is a sign of union with Christ, not that baptism actually does that. The sticky point is that we don't know who is elect, and God has called us to act this way, so by faith we ought to believe what He says in His word about the baptized being buried with Him in baptism, unless their fruit later in life shows otherwise.
Ironically, the same article, a column earlier, summarizes this quite well as it lays out Caspar Olevianus' position (author of Heidelberg Catechism):
"Since only God knows who is elect... the covenant of grace... can be said to be with all the baptized. Therefore we baptize on the basis of the divine command and promise, and we regard covenant children (before profession of faith) and all who make a credible profession of faith as Christians until they prove otherwise. Those who are in the covenant only in this broader sense or externally, do receive some of the benefits of the covenant (Heb 6:4-6), but they do not receive what Olevian called the 'substnace of the covenant:' justification and sanctification. Only those who are elect actually appropriate, by grace alone, through faith alone, the 'double benefit' of the covenant of grace."
Terrific post,Steve! Thank you for it...I knew I liked the Heidleberg!
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeletePlease pardon the long comment.
You’ve (inadvertently) identified the biggest problem surrounding the whole FV uproar. Even after four years of dialogue, too many people still don’t have the slightest clue what the FV proponents are saying but are still willing to criticize them, and I believe this quote from Table Talk (TT) proves it.
TT says that FV proponents believe all baptized people are elect but their election can be lost. The problem is that the truth of this statement depends on your definition of “elect” and “election”. Since you say this quote comes from a brief against the FV, it’s obvious that TT is using the terms elect and election in their traditional, soteriological context. This is normally a perfectly acceptable way of understanding the terms, but not in the context of FV criticism.
FV proponents use terms such as elect and election, but usually with a different meaning. Instead of speaking in an individualistic, salvific sense (the commonly understood meaning), FVers use these terms in a corporate, non-salvific, but still Biblical sense. For example, 2 John 1 has a greeting from John to the “eklektos” lady. The NASB translates this as “chosen” although in other places (Mt. 24:22, 24, 31 and the parallel passage in Mark) it is translated as “elect”. The NKJV translates it as “elect”. So, in the NKJV, the passage reads “The Elder, to the elect lady and her children…”
Did John mean he knew infallibly that this woman was predestined unto eternal salvation? No. He meant she was baptized into the body of Christ. In a corporate sense, she was “elect”. That doesn’t preclude the possibility that she might apostatize in the future, become a covenant breaker, and show herself to be among the damned. It means that she’s a professing Christian. She is elect into the covenant of grace in an objective and legally binding sense but not necessarily in a salvific sense. This is why the FVers say they are trying to recover the objectivity of the covenant.
So, since I understand the FV use of the words, I have no problem affirming the TT quote in its entirety. In a corporate sense (in the sense meant by John in 2 John 1), all baptized people are elect but this election can be forfeited.
There’s a need for this constant reminder: the first step in any meaningful debate is to ensure you can state the other person’s position to their satisfaction. FV critics routinely fail to follow this first step.
Conrad, it wasn't as inadvertent as it may appear. I like your redefinition of elect but know that's what it is - redefining - and that most Reformed people just don't like redefining theological terms! Nothing wrong with it in itself, but it tends to throw people off who are heavily relying on certain language for their understanding. Which is precisely why FV folks redefine terms: to take away that reliance and make people think again.
ReplyDeleteKen, the claim that FV is not being clear is often a cloaked way of saying, "Use OUR definitions, not yours." Not sure of the writing history behind your DA Carson point, so can't comment. But the problem isn't typically one of complexity as much as a willingness to grant terms, which is confused with giving up orthodoxy in some people's minds.
ReplyDeleteVital union and baptism: is there any reason to baptize then, other than that it was commanded? Is it something we tack on to remind us of God's grace, in good Zwinglian fashion?
Your distinction at the end makes the FV point: God knows who is elect; we know who is baptized. There are your two levels of discourse. God calls the church in history to deal with one another based on their baptism, and then based on their fruit, improving their baptism or not.
Of course one is either elect or not, in the traditional sense and in God's eternal decree. That does not obliterate different levels of discourse; it merely establishes one.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSince you said you would agree with the quote if the words elect and election were removed, I thought that you had missed the "redefinition" aspect of the dialogue. That's why I said I can affirm the whole quote, understanding what the FVers mean by their use of the words.
Forgive me if I assumed wrongly.
At the same time, they would probably argue that the redefinition took place when the Reformed church lost sight of the wider range of meaning that the Bible gives to these terms. That's why they talk about recovering something that was lost.
BTW, I don't think it was nearly as lost as some make it out to be. I can read Berkhof and get the basics of what the FV all seems to be talking about.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteSpeaking about Cal Beisner's forcing the divide, you said "one cannot be in heaven on one level of discourse, and in hell on another." I have to respectfully disagree.
Of course, one is either "in heaven" or "in hell" given a single frame of reference, or a single context. But without assuming a common context, there is no contradiction in asserting that a person is both "in heaven" and "in hell". There is more to a contradiction than simply asserting A and not A. One must assert both A and not A at the same time, and (here's the important part) in the same context.
It is the FVs critics' refusal to recognize that there are two different contexts involved that creates the false impression of a contradiction.
A person can be "in heaven" (in the corporate context - i.e., baptized) and not be "in heaven" (in the traditional, salvific context). No contradiction because the contexts aren't the same.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteJust for the record, I didn't make up my own rules of logic. All I did was state the full law of noncontradiction.
The law of noncontradiction states, in the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time".
A true contradiction requires more than simply affirming "A and not A".