It would be nice if we could work through the questions surrounding the FV without all the heat and acrimony that some are generating. But it is kind of like discipling kids. Paul says (Gal. 6:1) that if anyone is overtaken in a trespass, the one who is spiritual should correct him, considering his own situation, lest he also be tempted. But when a father is spiritual, and qualified to correct his child for chewing with his mouth open, he is often unmotivated. And when he is motivated, it is usually because he is annoyed, and therefore not qualified to say anything.
Those who could have very helpful things to say to us are generally not motivated to do so, and are off minding their own ministries. They have better things to do than take a passing cat by the ears. And those who are motivated to say something about the FV are frequently doing so in what might be called a hot and bothered fashion.
I continue to interact with Greenbaggins for two reasons. I believe that he really is giving an honest and conscientious effort to civil and honest interaction. This cannot be said about everyone who comments on his blog, but you can’t have everything. Secondly, a number of the national leaders of the FV critics have commented there, and I am sure that more are reading his blog. This has become the place where we can, at least indirectly, talk,
That said, Lane continues to be plagued by misunderstanding. For example, he quotes the FV statement, “We affirm the reality of the decrees, but deny that the decrees ‘trump’ the covenant,” and then objects to it this way:
“Well, this is clear as mud. The decree of God can be thwarted by the covenant? Is that what they mean? The decree must somehow be mutable and immutable at the same time? The decree of God is unchangeable, eternal, and infinite. Is not the covenant part of God’s decree? So they set the covenant against the decree and immediately claim that they have not done so. This is disingenuous at best.”
We affirm the reality of the decrees as decrees. The “reality of the decrees” means that we hold them to be immutable, untouchable, settled, predestined, foreordained, unthwartable, eternal, infinite, and unchangeable.
When we say that the reality of the decrees should not be allowed to trump the covenant, we are saying that it is right and appropriate and proper and good for a minister to warn a congregation against falling from grace, or trampling underfoot the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, or failing to bear fruit as a branch in the vine. We are talking about how we function, how we warn, how we admonish. The covenant is given to us. The decrees are made concerning us. It is not our job to parse the decrees. It is our job to live in terms of the covenant. We affirm that the decrees are there. We deny that we should preach or admonish someone in particular based on a presumed knowledge of the content of the decrees with regard to that person. This is a distinction that the Bible gives us expressly.
“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Dt. 29:29).
It is revealed to us that Christians can fall away from the covenant. It is not revealed to us who was predestined to do so, and who was predestined to remain — although everyone in the covenant is in one or the other category. The latter is therefore not to be the basis of our pastoral warnings. The former is.