Thinking for the Feds and the Arms
I am becoming increasingly concerned for folks who have been taken captive by both Arminian and Federal Calvinist frameworks (both the product of the same doctrine of God, thus similar outcomes when construing their “salvation theories”). Here is the basic problem, that is that both of these constructs frame salvation in a way that is very “subjective.” For the Fed. a person is left in limbo based upon “good works,” if they have them, then they are most likely ‘elect’. If the Arm. maintains a lifestyle of “good works,” then they can be sure that they are ’elect’ or ‘saved’. Neither one of these frameworks grounds salvation in Christ, first. In other words, the Feds ground it in a decree, and the Arms root it in a decree; neither ground salvation in the “objective” life of God in an immediate personal way.
Pastorally this leaves serious saints dangling in a sea of subjectivity; these saints must look to themselves before they are able to look to Christ and call Him their “beloved.” This is a terrible blight and set of circumstances that has been foisted onto simple serious saints in the church; and it is a blight that this blog seeks to remedy. I don’t see this as a theological game, I see bad theology like this affecting real life people with real life consequences for folks daily spirituality. Usually, it seems to me, that many in ‘Reformed’ circles don’t see the reality and implications of their own ‘systems’; it’s rather strange, because typically folks attracted to this kind of ‘intellectualist’ Christianity are just that, ‘intellectually predisposed’. But it’s as if they can’t think out the implications of their own positions, again, this is one of the reasons for this blog; I want to help them to do that.
20 Responses to “Thinking for the Feds and the Arms”
Recent Comments
 | Bobby Grow on EC Book… |
 | Bev Mitchell on EC Book… |
| Bobby Grow on “TEC” Archive… |
 | Jon Sellers on “TEC” Archive… |
| Bobby Grow on “TEC” Archive… |
Copy Info
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Hey Bobby I agree completely.Wrong understanding and misconception about God is very dangerous.Wrong believing will lead to wrong living.I am seeing this in the lives of saints.They are zealous for the work of the Lord and they want to please Him but their misconception and misunderstanding of who God is and what we have as children of God has left them distraught.The danger lies in not beginning and being centered in the person and work of Christ,His finished and ongoing work as Priest and Mediator.I believe neither of those theologies leave anyone secure in their salvation in Christ because both of those systems leave the believer looking to themselves and not the faithfulness of Christ as Mediator and High Priest.Our security as believers isn’t dependent on our faithfulness but rather is firmly rooted and grounded in the finished work of Christ at Calvary and in Him being our High Priest and our Mediator.The sad reality is you hardly will hear preached the person and work of Christ and what we have in the New Covenant as children of God.There is a whole lot of law and grace being preached.A lot of what is preached leaves a person looking to themselves and not to Christ and many people don’t experience the abundant life of Jesus Christ and they get depressed and distraught and don’t want to serve God.I see this first and foremost as a minister of the gospel.We are stewards of the unsearchable riches of Christ.I ordered both and Incarnation and Atonement today and I am excited about getting a hold of them.
I’m really excited that you picked up those two books! “Incarnation” is great, and a quicker read; “Atonement” is quite good too, it’s much longer, I’m still working through it myself.
It sounds like our thinking resonates, Chris! Glad we have come across eachother, and I hope the posts here will continue to be encouraging; it is so important to ground everything in Christ, and I think as you read TFT’s Incarnation you’ll have a much better sense of where I’m coming from on that point (i.e. thinking through and out of the logic of the homoousion and incarnation as the inner logic that holds so much of the assumptions of scripture together).
Greetings Bobby,
Isn’t this pastoral problem (as it manifests within Reformed circles) exactly what the Federal Vision guys are trying to address? How would you contrast your approach to theirs? (And if you’ve already written on this, just point me to the entry. No need to repeat yourself when I’m happy to do a little homework.)
Oh no, not Federal Vision at all, Tim!
What I know of FV is that they are trying to reinvigorate the Puritan vision. Again, I don’t see much difference between Federal Theology and FV, to be honest; I see them both offering up a “cooperative” model of salvation wherein they construe grace in “substance metaphysical” terms. In other words they both operate out of a Thomist notion of God.
I don’t have a post that directly contrasts what EC is doing vs FV. I’m curious though, what led you to think that what is being advocated here is similar with Federal Vision?
Glad to hear from you.
The main contrast would be a different doctrine of God. Here’s a post that might be of interest:
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/12/23/the-primacy-of-gods-life-as-the-ground-of-salvation-and-the-scotist-thesis/
Evangelical Calvinism also believes that Christ died for all humanity:
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/07/i-game-on-introducing-evangelical-calvinist-predestination-and-election/
and:
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/10/carnal-and-spiritual-union/
There is substantial difference between FV and EC. Let me know what you think. It is an ongoing task to try and articulate what EC is indeed all about. TF Torrance’s book: “Scottish Theology” is the best intro on that for now (but it is prohibitively expensive, unfortunately).
Let me know though why you think FV might be similar to Evangelical Calvinism (which btw, I see EC more in line with some of the concerns of “Free Grace” the Hodges kind, than many other instantiations out there today).
Bobby,
You mentioned each system in terms of decree. Do you see any connection here with the various lapsarian views? If so, I may have a additional comments.
Can you provide more clarification, Steve?
Bobby,
Speaking from a pastoral rather than a theological angle, the first similarity is that you reject the same thing. You both are death on any way of doing reformation theology that results in destroying people’s assurance. The concept of a 200-member church where only 10 people take communion because everybody else is unsure they’re really saved — that sort of thing is anathema to you both, and you’re both trying to answer it from within the Reformed tradition. (At least, if I understand you correctly.)
So it seemed like there might be common ground there.
I see affinities to Free Grace within some of the FV work — pastorally speaking, it’s a kind of Reformed theology I can live with, because they take assurance seriously at a pastoral level. Theologically speaking, I don’t see where it’s possible to reconcile perseverance with that — I think there’s a hairline fracture in all the major Reformed confessions at that point — but above all I care about what the pastor actually says to the sheep. The shepherd actually giving the sheep biblical assurance and rest is the thing most necessary. If that’s getting done, then we can can have a collegial chat about the theology.
If the “shepherd” is torturing the sheep with morbid self-examination and doubt instead, collegial chat goes right out the window — this person is slandering God and enslaving His sheep; he’s a thief and a hireling, a pustule on the Body of Christ, and there’s nothing to be done but beat him about the head and shoulders with a copy of the Institutes, and ask God to strike him mute until he repents.
Not that I feel strongly about it…
Bobby,
I’m not sure how far I’m following your terminology — if I’ve misunderstood you somewhere, please say so.
I’m no authority on FV, per se. But what I have heard — about 70 hours of primary source audio, give or take a few hours — suggests a little different angle on it than what you said.
Although I have heard several FV guys express great admiration for a number of early Puritans, I’ve also heard scalding critiques of some of the later ones. Re-invigorating puritanism — depending on what you mean by that — might be a tad simplistic.
For what it’s worth to you, I’ve also heard multiple FV guys say pointedly that saving grace is not a substance, and shouldn’t be talked about that way. I don’t think Thomas fares particularly well at their hands, either, but that could be my misunderstanding.
To my ears, your summary sounded very much more like an opponent’s pigeonholing than anything they might say about themselves.
To be honest Tim, I don’t know enough about FV to say too much. The approach being advocated here is not FV, my resources come from folks like TF Torrance, Janice Knight, Theodore Dwight Bozeman, Ron Frost, Myk Habets, et al.
What is the informing voice for the FV view of a doctrine of God? My assumption is that they are still operating out of a Thomist perspective; which if true decidely distinguishes their approach from EC which is Scotist.
Do you know of Scottish Theology, and how it handles the Reformed Confessions (esp. the Scots Confession)? This is really one of the informing voices for EC (actually THE voice). I would’ve hoped that the links I provided would have made clear, a little more anyway, how EC thinks of the atonement and election; which is quite different from Federal Theology and FV (what I know of it).
Like you, what really drives me is how the pastor shepherds; I care about the ‘sheep’, and my desire is to encourage folks to look at Christ. So if they are being taught theology that methodologically teaches them to look at themselves I’m going to speak against it; which seems to put us in the same camp in the regard.
Because lapsarianism places God’s (eternity past) decrees in a logical or chronological order, I’m wondering if you think each system’s reliance on slavation by decree to be tied in to their lapsarian views. They see this in “eternity past.” I don’t see a God’s decrees subjected to time, so I reject lapsarianism as a concept. I see his decrees as eternal without respect to time, so salvation doesn’t have to be rooted in a decree.
That’s as best as I can explain, so if it doesn’t make sense, then nevermind. Just a curiosity.
Steve,
Thanks. I see decretal language tied into the Incarnation, so that anything “decreed” by God in eternity is indeed grounded in His inner-trinitarian life; and what we see worked out in time (in the “Man from Nazareth”) is only antecedently true because of what God freely determined in eternity.
But I don’t see a decree for the “Fall.”
I guess to answer your question in general though, I see the ontological and economic Trinity as univocal; so that who God is in eternity (ad intra) is who we see in time (ad extra) cf. Jn 14.
Don’t know if that really addresses your question.
I just started reading the Scots Confession a couple of weeks ago, in preparation for a series on Reformation history. So I’ll be up to speed shortly there.
The practical aspect is the really important part. You, me, the FV folk (or some of them, anyhow), the FG folk that aren’t too pinch-faced, the second-generation CCEF folk — there’s a lot of us can work together on that basis.
Bobby,
I don’t think I’ve heard one of the FV guys answer that exact question, and I won’t presume to speak for them. I regularly hear Wilson quoting Knox and the Scots Confession approvingly, for whatever that’s worth, and I’ve heard approving references to Torrance from amongst that crowd as well.
Agreed, Tim! Glad to work with you.
Yeah, I’ll have to spend some more time understanding where they’re coming from. I’ve read Doug Wilson a bit, but not much.
Bobby,
For whatever my $0.02 is worth at the current exchange rate, I would suggest the ’02 and ’03 conferences from http://auburnavenue.org/media/mp3.html as a starting point. Nothing like going to the source.
I would also suggest that Christ Church’s ’99 conference (“Poetic Ministry”) addresses some important FV underpinnings. They expected a fair amount of controversy from that conference, and it doesn’t seem to have happened. In my opinion, which is admittedly formulated from afar, the FV controversy is the anticipated controversy — it just took a few years for the approach they were advocating to strike enough sparks in the right places to cause an explosion.
Tim:
“Pustule on the body of Christ”?
That’s a riot!
I think of the author and finisher of our faith described as “A bruised reed HE would not break, neither would a smoking flax HE quench”. Those pustules you’re talking about love to bend over the reeds and throw cold water on those that smolder.
Your Brother
Thanks, Tim, I’ll have to check this out!