My thanks to Lane for working through our Federal Vision statement. This response of mine should tie that one off with a bow, and so it will be off to the next thing. Perhaps paedocommunion if we can work out a system.
I agree with Lane that IAOC is not the same thing as imputation in general. And I agree that imputation proper appears to be at stake in some FV writers. But this is not the same thing as saying that it is at stake in the FV position itself. Neither is it the same as saying that the substance of what imputation points to is at stake. I say this as one who affirms all forms of imputation as understood by the classic Reformed theologians — active, passive, and around the block three times imputation.
Let me put it this way. Lane says “If one disagrees with the transfer sense of imputation, one automatically exits the entire Protestant camp.” It is not that simple. If someone rejects the Roman teaching of infused righteousness being the basis for justification, and says that the way we are credited with the righteousness of another is like a marriage, then I don’t see the basis for Lane’s statement. All the goods of the husband legally become the possession of the wife when they are united, and this happens even if there is not a forensic declaration concerning the property. Now I still believe that logidzomai includes an important forensic element, as when the foreman of the jury reads the words “not guilty,” but I don’t know that to use the union/marriage analogy instead of the courtroom analogy is enough to unProtestant somebody if the substance of an “alien righteousness” is still there.
I have been the foreman of a jury, and we found the defendant guilty of murder. I have also been the presiding minister at many weddings, and have many times announced that the man and woman are now husband and wife. In the first instance, it is was forensic declaration simpliciter, and it was directly aimed at the one point at issue. In the latter instances, there have been many forensic ramifications, which are very much there, but are nevertheless backgrounded. He kisses the bride, and the ceremony does not include going through her bags to see what he got. This is not to agree with the union-imputation emphasis necessarily, but simply to point out that a union-with-Christ model of justification does not necessarily (depending on how it is framed) exclude complete dependance on the righteousness of another.
On the covenant of grace and covenant of works, Lane acknowledges (and I acknowledge that he acknowledges) that the Mosaiac economy is “part of the Covenant of Grace.” But he limits this drastically, saying it is true “regarding the ordo salutis.” He then refers to the “CoW aspect of the Mosaic economy” perhaps having to do with Israel in the promised land. Two problems. The first is that according to the Westminster Confession (7.5), the entire apparatus of the Mosaic economy was an administration of the covenant of grace. The Westminster divines say the covenant of grace was adminstered through “promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews,” and Lane says that it has reference to the ordo salutis, something conveniently invisible. Once again, Lane needs to take an exception and notify his presbytery. The second problem is that you have two different covenants (works and grace) intertwined in quite an unbelievable way. It is not enough for Lane that Steve Wilkins affirms a qualitative difference between the elect and reprobate covenant members — Lane demands that Steve tell us exactly what that qualitative difference is. So turn about is fair play, and the measure with which you measure you shall be measured. I would like to ask Lane precisely what the boundary line is beteween the respective covenants of grace and works in the Mosaic economy. What is it? Where is it? And please keep the distinctions confessional — on this point, a train already missed.
On the living nature of saving faith, Lane and I agree that living faith is a sine qua non of justification. We also agree (though Lane doesn’t see it) that the living nature of faith is not a cause of justification in the sense of being a ground or basis of that justification. Fine. But it is Lane who has some categories confused. He says, “the instrumentality of faith is in laying hold of Christ.” Correct again, but actions like “laying hold of” are not actions performed by dead things. It is as though Lane were saying that the right fielder extended his glove and caught the ball, and the instrumentality of that catch was the “extending of the arm.” And I say, trying to be helpful, that “he couldn’t have done this without being alive at the time.” But Lane objects to this simple and obvious qualification as some kind of intrusion. Extending your arm is a lawful instrument, but extending a living arm isn’t? If this keeps up much longer, I am going to give up theology altogether.
I am glad for Lane’s qualifications on assurance of salvation, and I apologize for misreading his earlier statement. His paragraph on assurance here is quite good, and I agree with it. Knowledge of decretal election is what we come to know when we come to assurance by a right use of the means of grace at our disposal. And this, please note, is one of the central themes of the FV. We look at the decrees through the lens of the covenant, and not the other way around. And when we are faithful in our use of these covenantal means, we do make our calling and election sure. We can see the decrees, but only if we don’t try to see them directly.
On Augustine, let me make my question more specific. Lane said earlier that to maintain the possibility saving grace could be lost was Arminian, even if you believed in decretal election. Well, that was Augustine. He believed in sovereign election, obviously, but he also believed that true regeneration was reversible. So then, according to the standard set for us all, was Augustine an Arminian?