If there’s already literature out there that does this, I apologise and would ask someone to kindly direct me to it.

Thank you for your response.

Perhaps I am misreading Pastor Leithart in his letter to the stated clerk of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery, points #7 & #8:

7. Union with Christ and benefits: I do believe that some are united to Christ yet do not persevere (John 15). During the time they are branches in the vine, they do receive benefits from Christ through the Spirit and may enjoy real, personal, and deep communion with Jesus for a time. Yet, their relationship with Christ is not identical to the relationship of the elect. Put it this way: Some are united to Christ as members of the bride but are headed for divorce; others are united and headed for consummation. Marriages that end in divorce are not the same as marriages that end happily. I have discussed this at further length in chapter 4 of The Baptized Body.

8. Temporary benefits: I have already described my views on this above in #2 and 7. Biblically, I am convinced that some are united to Christ but do not persevere (John 15; 2 Pet 2:20-22).

Now I recognize that the way in which Pastor Leithart is speaking here is not in the same language that Rome and I would use, but the question of assurance remains the same for the believer; “If I am justified freely by His grace, but may lose my “union with Christ” or justified status, where is my comfort?”

If it is up to me to persevere rather than that perfect perservering obedience imputed to me by Christ, won’t I as a man far more familiar with the sinfulness of my own heart to rest in its ability to earn this perseverence fall into utter despair?

The idea that one could at one moment by united to Christ (or as I understand this concept, justified) and at the next “fail” to persevere (therefore lose his justification) by “divorce” at the very least violates the confessional teaching on perseverance by redefining the relationship one perserveres in and through.

The idea that a person could lose their union with Christ is contrary to Scripture (…neither height nor depth, angels nor demons…). Am I missing something in the above comments by Pastor Leithart? It seems to me that his letter to his Presbytery only solidified the fact that he believes those things which the GA report suggested, in spite of his denial.

I do believe that this is a problem with the FV. By introducing new language to the discussion without a dictionary it is easy to talk passed one another. Changing the meaning of words from one thing to another is exceedingly confusing as well. I recognize that my understanding of what is being said above is limited by my vocabulary and the constant attempt to translate FV language into the language of the confession, and perhaps this is part and parcel to the challenge of the constant reflection upon the truths taught in the Standardss in an effort to bring them forth to each succeeding generation of believers (how is that for a run-on sentence!?). Even so, I sense that there are substantial differences between what I am hearing from the FV crowd and what is said in the Standards.

I wish you all a wonderful Lord’s Day!

When Paul goes to Ephesus and finds disciples, he asks them “What Baptism” they had had. Only John’s. So, he baptizes them in the Name of Jesus, and lays hands on them and they speak in tongues. There were 12 disciples all told.

The second thing is when Paul relates his story to the kings and authorities, he mentions that, after his Road to Damascus experience, Ananais comes to him and says, “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ Act 22:16

It just seems to me that those who are having lots of problems with FV would not be likely to ever say to somebody “be baptized and wash away your sins,” lest they be confused with Romanism, or some other horror.

They are also uncomfortable with passages such as:
Tit 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

That is, if you associate “washing of regeneration” in any ‘objective’ way with Baptism.

They have less problems, as good Presbyterians with:
2Ti 1:6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands,

1Ti 4:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.

Well, except maybe the prophecy part.

But, I’m being too catty. I just wanted to make sure people saw your posts, because - though I have some ideas - I’d like to see more worthy folks tackle what you have to say.

It’s been a pleasure and an education reading the interaction here on the FV controversy. At this time, I’d like to present a basic Aristotelian reading of the “FV” teaching on justification (as I understand it) and conclude with a few questions.

I ask that readers will prayerfully consider the following Spirit-inspired words in connection with the thoughts expressed below. In Eph. 4:4-7 St. Paul writes:

“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.”

Here is my attempt to make sense of FV:

1) Jesus Christ is the perfectly Justified Man and his Person & work comprise the material cause of our justification (Solus Christus). (Since FV advocates affirm this point, I’m going to leave aside questions regarding the IAOC for now).

2) The traditional Reformed teaching is that faith is the sole formal cause of justification (Sola Fide). It is important to note that while faith is non-meritorious it is nevertheless a “cause” of justification.

3) The FV recognizes the fact that there are not many faiths, but “One Faith” as the apostle says (Eph. 4:5).

4) This “One Faith” is a common heritage shared by all believers (to various degrees of fullness) and may be variously identified as the Church’s Tradition, the New Covenant, or “the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16). This is that Faith which was “once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3).

5) The Church as the “one body” is the Justified Community by virtue of being incorporated into Christ, the Justified Man.

6) In order to express this reality, FV distinguishes between objective (and subjective forms of justification.

7) Objective justification is personally applied when an individual is added to the Church through the initiatory rite of water baptism. Baptism is not properly a human act; it is an act of God (Sola Gratia).

8 ) Subjective justification becomes a reality in one’s life only when a true and living faith is in exercise. Of course, we know that faith is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8). This and the previous point express the idea that it is God himself who is the efficient cause of justification (Sola Gratia).

9) Subjective justification is historically dependent on objective justification in the way that individual faith is dependent on the word preached. Personal faith is a real participation in the one holy, catholic, and apostolic faith of Christ’s Church.

10) All persons may be said to be objectively justified as long as they remain in the Church.

11) The reprobate (those who aren’t subjectively justified because of an absence of true faith) either fall away or are cast out of the Church at the final judgment.

12) At the end of time, the Father will present a spotless Bride to his Son. This is, of course, the eschatological Church–the redeemed and glorified human race. The Son glorifies the Father and the Church glorifies the Son, and, the Father through the Son. Here at once the Father provides the supreme gift to his Son, and, the Son, comprehending all things, offers all things to God. The eschatological Church is therefore the divinely intendedtelos (goal) of all creation (Eph. 1:3-10). Since God, in his wisdom, conceived of this purpose and by his omnipotence brings it to fruition, all glory belongs to him (Soli Deo Gloria).

13) The FV likewise teaches that the eschatological Church will be “finally justified” by God’s “Deliverdict.” This justification I take to be the teleological cause of our present justification (in both its objective and subjective aspects).

I think all these ideas have been argued at various times by FV advocates. It’s just necessary to arrange them in their proper logical relation.

To round out the system, it can be argued that #13 implies the following:

14) The union between Christ and his Church is so fundamental that, in a real sense, the works of the saints are Christ’s own works. Christ’s righteousness is the ground of our own righteousness. Our works are his. And his work is the material cause of ours, providing at once the motive and power behind our own good works. As a friend of mine, Mike Spreng, recently paraphrased St. Augustine, “when God crowns our works He is crowning His own works - His own grace.” (Thanks Mike!)

So, I’d like to ask whether FV contributors to this forum think I’ve accurately captured the spirit of FV in this account of their views.

Finally, I ask FV critics (especially those who boisterously clamor for the authority of Reformed Scholasticism) whether they are comfortable with this application of Aristotelian causation to the problem. Can the Philospher be enlisted for the purpose of reconciling apparent contradictions between the various theories regarding justification?

A final word: causes are not always meritorious. However, they are always valuable. I respectfully suggest that the quest for one “meritorious cause of justification” distracts from the reality that God employs many causes to accomplish our justification. It is all of grace and it is many sided. We should expect nothing less of the Supreme Creator of all things.

Blessings to you all.

As for your last post, I don’t know what to make of it. I just don’t recognize my convictions in what you write. I’m not really advocating a “new understanding” of justification. I’m really pretty traditional and downright confessional when it comes to justification. I just don’t buy into a certain stream of our tradition that uses the IAOC formulation and makes more of “merit” than the Bible does. But I have absolutely no trouble with the Westminster Standards on justification. In fact, I just came from a committee meeting where we examined two men for ordination. I chair the examinations committee. And I always make sure that the men are careful about their confession of the Reformation doctrine of justification. Justification is an act of God’s free grace, etc.

So I don’t know what this “fatal flaw” might be. No FV guy that I know says that justification is “in the end. . . conditional upon the performance of the presumed believer.” Nobody I know advocates a new scheme that “relies upon the faithfulness of the believer to somehow affect [sic] a justification that ‘lasts’ to the end times.” That’s either a straw man or some FV guy has said something that I don’t know about. Look at our joint “profession.”

So I’m asking for clarification: where has anyone said these things? What is this new “system that many in the FV are espousing” that has “fatal flaws.” If it’s anything like what you have described in your comment, it’s a fiction. Nobody holds to any such theological monstrosity.

Double imputation is an act of God wherein our sins are transfered to Christ on the cross and His righteousness to us. When God looks upon us, therefore, He no longer sees our sinfulness but Christ’s obedient faithfulness because of our justification. Implied here is that Adam left redemption unaccomplished by his disobedience, that I inherited said disobedience, that Christ earned redemption through His obedience, and that as a Christian I am found righteous due to a declarative act of God by grace alone.

God does not place a condition upon whether He will recognize us to have recieved Christ’s righteousness at the final judgment. Christ’s righteousness is ours in fact. Shall we then proceed to grow in holiness as a result of our gratitide to God for this wonderous gift of grace? Absolutely. Should we question whether we are truly in union with Christ if we live contentedly in perpetual sin and those with whom we make community in the Church don’t see our sanctification being worked out through the means of God’s appointment? Absolutely. Does this mean that our justification is conditional upon our sanctification? No.

When I assert that your “new understanding” sounds similar to Roman Catholic soteriology, it would behoove you to show how my assertion is incorrect or ask for clarification. If I appeared to be making a gratuitous assertion, allow me to elaborate:

First, the emphasis upon obedience in Roman Catholic soteriology left the saint with no assurance. Faith, they said, must accompany works. Grace, they said, was recieved in baptism but justification was not assured for the beleiver unless he avoided “mortal sin”, remaining faithful to the end of his life. Justification was, in the end, conditional upon the performance of the presumed believer and they could die with nothing but questions as to their status before Christ the judge.

Second, many representatives of the FV have said that they’re concerned about assurance, as I am. The reformation’s emphasis, in addition to freeing the Church from the idolotry of the Papists, was concerned with salvation by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone for God’s glory alone. When I hear a new scheme which is presumed to be reformed and Presbyterian, but I hear that it relies upon the faithfulness of the believer to somehow affect a justification that “lasts” to the end times, I am stumped, and ask how this doesn’t “sound provacatively similar to the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelicals you claim to wish to correct.”

As I said at the outset, I’m all about thinking through the truths of Scripture and the Confessions in a new way to communicate them to another generation. As a father of 4 (soon 5) children I’m extremely interested in that. However, the system that many in the FV are espousing has fatal flaws that set it quite apart from that of the Confessions, and the way that the Confessions (and the whole Protestant Reformation for that matter) saw soteriology.

Again, I enjoy the discussion greatly.

In another thread a question as to what a biblicist is by Pastor Jordan was left unanswered. I wouldn’t venture a guess as to what one is, but I do think you’ve practice something that one would do by suggesting that my comments are against the Bible per se rather than your interpretation of it. By structuring the question as you have, the suggestion moves away from my disagreement with your interpretation to an implication that to disagree with you is to disagree with Scripture. Failure to make the distinction between these two points will certainly make this debate impossible, as will a failure to recognize that the Romanists have one interpretation of those passages and the historic reformed tradition quite another.

The basis of my comments in that last paragraph stem from what seems to be the same confusion on the part of the FV between justification and sanctification that characterized Roman teaching. If a person is justified forensically the earthly evidence will be sanctification, the eschatological glorification. If, however, you throw in a scheme wherein a person is justified but not glorified because of a lack of faithfulness, one violates the historic reformed teaching on perseverance.

You affirm above your commitment to clarifying the Standards and I would applaud such an effort, as I believe each generation ought to devote itself to doing just that. If there is a better way that the reformed scheme can be communicated without it morphing into a faithfulness and obedience that is conditionally tied to one’s justification but instead is recognized as evidence of that work that God has begun in the believer in salvation (aka sanctification), I haven’t heard it yet.

I’ve thoroughly enjoyed following this conversation and found it helpful in clarifying some of the FV teachings.

No, to your third. What do you mean by double imputation? If you mean 1) the imputation of Adam’s sin/guilt to us, and 2) the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, then there has been no denial of that by any FV man. We all embrace double imputation.

As to your fourth and fifth paragraph, where have I said anything about “active, covenant keeping faith” in this post? And if you think that anytime we make a reference to the responsibility of Christians to be obedient, remain faithful, or persevere we are thereby saying something “provocatively similar to that of the Roman Catholic church,” then you don’t have a problem with us but with Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John. How can an admonition to obedience or a warning against the consequences of unfaithfulness be equated with Roman Catholic soteriology? But again, my post here had nothing to do with this.

Let me put this to you as a question: in your last paragraph are you suggesting that all admonitions in the Bible to Christians to remain faithful and obedient unto death are dangerous and Romanist? Isn’t the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints all about God giving us the grace to respond to these admonitions and remain faithful to the end? If every time “we” say something about the need for obedience or covenant faithfulness people are going to cry “Romanist!”, then it will be impossible to debate these issues in any kind of sane way.

When explaining your justification for changing confessional language it seems that you’re suggesting that you only seek to clarify what is contained in the confession. That is, a change of wording that more correctly, fully, biblically, or pastorally communicates what the Standards teach. That is what I do when I explain the Standards to my children, and I have no problem with that.

On the other hand, I’ve observed in this discussion a divergence of the substance of your views from what the Standards taught. If I could hear a substantially similar but, in terms of emphasis clearer characterization of double imputation I’d personally be more sympathetic to the FV message. I haven’t heard one offered, though I’ve heard many requests for the same.

Similarly, your post here and Elder Hart’s recent post both touch upon the genuinely problematic diversions of FV teaching from the Standards on perseverance. The formulation of active, covenant keeping faith sounds provacatively similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church and of those Evangelicals you claim to wish to correct.

That congregant of yours who seeks comfort in the question of whether they are elect or not will undoubtedly get to the point where the question arises as to how an unfaithful and sinful heart may be expected to “keep covenant” and persevere to eschatalogical justification in glory. What then?