tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post111418983874090839..comments2024-01-05T13:36:55.379-06:00Comments on Two-Edged Sword: Westminster LC Q.68 and Federal VisionLeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10422257306176024118noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1115271366276424482005-05-05T00:36:00.000-05:002005-05-05T00:36:00.000-05:00They often say that baptism unites one to Christ a...They often say that baptism unites one to Christ and all his benefits, including the benefits purchased on the cross. This is where I really have a problem. The baptized unbeliever has forgiveness from the cross of Christ yet somehow loses this benefit later. This is what I believe Horne and Wilson and others are talking about when they talk about union. Baptism unites us to the cross of Christ, and the forgiveness that comes with it, but some only get it for a time. Hard to reconcile with John 6:39.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10422257306176024118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1115177683456574442005-05-03T22:34:00.000-05:002005-05-03T22:34:00.000-05:00Could we say that the baptized unbeliever takes pa...Could we say that the baptized unbeliever takes part in the Spirit in accordance with Hebrews 6:4, not in a salvific sense, but in some lesser sense? Is this what your opposition is getting at? I am not well versed in their "perspective." <BR/><BR/>AndrewGone for nowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07737184817375562018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1114974232880676452005-05-01T14:03:00.000-05:002005-05-01T14:03:00.000-05:00Andy,John 15 is one of the passages that is in que...Andy,<BR/>John 15 is one of the passages that is in question in the Federal Vision debate. The metaphor of Jesus being the vine and we the branches is a beautiful picture, but in my opinion, it is a metaphor that must let the rest of Scripture explain to us. Is a fruitless person who is bound for hell in true union with Jesus Christ? The answer is no for Christ loses none of those who are given to Him (John 6), and those who depart are not truly a part of us (I John) and faith is what unites us to Christ (John 11, Matt. 16, Eph. 2:8-9, etc.). It seems to me that the Federal Vision men want to make the metaphor the center instead of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. Peter Leithart argues that “metaphor is not an adornment to thought and speech, but a primary medium of both” (Federal Vision pg. 203). He continues on to say, “Theologians, of course, are called to submit to the root metaphors that Scripture provides” (pg. 204). It seems a legitimate worry that the metaphors are beginning to govern how we understand the didactic passages, rather than vice versa. I believe that Mark Horne and Doug Wilson are following the Leithart and making the metaphor of the vine and branches the governing passage about salvation rather than clearer passages that speak to nature of union with Christ. <BR/><BR/>Dr. Funk, <BR/>I disagree. Yes there are non-elect in the Church, but I don’t think it is a paradox whether or not they are engrafted into Christ. Doug Wilson clearly argues that membership in the Christian faith or in Christ can be “fingerprinted” and “photographed” and it is through baptism (Reformed is Not Enough pg. ). He goes on to tell us that Baptism engrafts us into Christ. The whole point of his original quote that they are “real branches” means that they are really united to him. You say, “just being a part of the visible church . . . does not mean you are truly engrafted into Christ.” I think this is exactly the opposite of what Wilson is saying. Being a part of the visible church makes you a part of Christ for Wilson and many other Federal Vision people. Membership in Christ is “objective”, can be “fingerprinted” and “photographed” because of baptism. Thus, the question for me is how can membership in Christ be like this and then still argue that Christ loses none of us, as you pointed out. <BR/><BR/>And I agree with Andy, this is a very important discussion.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10422257306176024118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1114732852544305912005-04-28T19:00:00.000-05:002005-04-28T19:00:00.000-05:00No offense intended, but declaring topics that hav...No offense intended, but declaring topics that have engrossed the best Christian minds in all of history "moot" is simply nonsense. You cannot just engage in a little prooftexting and declare victory. You will have to do much more than that to defeat such men as St. Augustine, John Calvin, Francis Turretin, Martin Luther, B.B. Warfield, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge...shall I go on?Gone for nowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07737184817375562018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1114706569539833422005-04-28T11:42:00.000-05:002005-04-28T11:42:00.000-05:00The questions go in interminable circles with unsa...The questions go in interminable circles with unsatisfactory incongruent answers because of trying to make the gospel fit the doctrine. If Christ called to "whosoever" and it is true that God is not willing that any should perish, then many of these points in the discussion are moot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1114631868271980712005-04-27T14:57:00.000-05:002005-04-27T14:57:00.000-05:00I think in many ways this is one of the paradoxes ...I think in many ways this is one of the paradoxes of the faith. The Bible definitely teaches that of those who are called, Jesus will lose none (John 6:39), but it also teaches that there are branches that do not bear fruit and will be pruned and thrown into the fire (John 15:2, Romans 11:21). In plain English, there are people in the visible church who are not elect. They are "part of Christ" in that they receive common grace, and are "sustained by the root," but in the end they are not true branches and will not persevere. I think this is why Paul instructs us to work out our salvation in fear and trembling (Philipians 2:12) and Peter advises that we make our election sure (2 Peter 1:10)--just being part of the visible church, and involved in its ministries, and receiving some measure of grace, does not mean you are truly engrafted into Christ.<BR/><BR/>I am not a great student of the MVP controversy, but I think we may be arguing at cross purposes. The times I have seen this argument in C/A, Doug Wilson uses his belief that the non-elect are still (temporarily) branches on the Vine of Christ as a basis for why we should use Biblical church discipline against those branches. So he is not trying to deny limited atonement, the efficiency of Christ's sacrifice, or irrestible grace--he is trying to argue that the response to these false branches is not to separate from them, ("syncretists are not true believers"--which they aren't, BTW) but to try to accept them at their claim of being "brothers" and try to reform them ("if you say you are Christian, why do you follow other idols?").Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1114216955680493352005-04-22T19:42:00.000-05:002005-04-22T19:42:00.000-05:00Lee,I hear your point, and I think I agree. Howev...Lee,<BR/><BR/>I hear your point, and I think I agree. However, if non-persevering confessors were not a branch of Christ in some sense, then how do we explain John 15? The problem is compounded by the fact that we are here speaking in metaphor, which is not the reality itself. So, the entire argument is located in the explanation of the metaphor.<BR/><BR/>Peace to you,<BR/>AndyGone for nowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07737184817375562018noreply@blogger.com