In the “Bitter Wormwoods” post below, I appreciated a comment by David Gadbois, an FV critic, and thought I should respond to it here. He said, “I think Dr. Clark is right in his statement about the FV in general, although I think only 2 of the points would apply to Wilson at all (paedocommunion and the nature of justifying faith).”
And there are three responses, two of them brief qualifications, and one that I think is really central in the continuing controversy.
The first is that I obviously would differ with Mr. Gadbois over whether Dr. Clark is accurately representing my friends in FV circles. At the same time, it is fair to say that I have gone out of my way — for the sake of ecumenism, believe it or not — to state my convictions in ways that I believe an honest TR could immediately accept. I know my FV friends are telling the truth when they clearly state that they are not denying the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Confession. But I have sought to go one better, and actively and openly teach the doctrines of the Westminster Confession. It is this, in my view, that accounts for the difference in perception between Federal Vision lagers and Federal Vision amber ales. But for anyone who doubts our substantive agreement, Canon Press has a recorded discussion between me and Rich Lusk that should be helpful.
Second, my difference on the “nature of justifying faith” is clearly a difference I have with Dr. Clark, but I would deny that it is a difference that I have with the Westminster divines at all. By “obedient faith” I mean nothing more or less than “living faith.” I do not mean in any way, shape or form, some kind of merit found in the creature that would ingratiate him with the Almighty. Obedient faith is the only kind that God ever gives, and when He gives it, this justifying faith obeys the gospel, obeys the truth, obeys His salvation. Faith that does not obey the gospel is not justifying faith. This faith is qualitatively different than the “yeah-uh-huh” kind of faith that even devils can have. This qualitative difference (if you wish, its sanctity) arises from the fact that, in the traditional ordo which Dr. Clark is apparently denying, living repentance and living faith are the fruit of regeneration. Regeneration is prior. This regenerate heart is (in the traditional ordo, if measured with a stop watch) an unjustified heart. The order is effectual call, regeneration, repentance, faith, justification. Now the obedience of Christ is imputed to me at the end of this process (if you must call it a chronological process), but something is done in me at the beginning of it. Because my heart was changed from hostility to submission, the repentance and faith that arise out of this new heart share this new quality of submission. Faith cannot but partake of the qualities of its source. Dr. Clark is free to deny this traditional ordo if he wants, but he is not free to accuse people of heterodoxy for no other reason than that they hold to it.
The last point is the one that I was glad was obvious to Mr. Gadbois, a critic of the federal vision generally, and that is the fact that I gladly hold, teach, embrace and love the vast majority of Dr. Clark’s doctrinal affirmations (to be distinguished from his slanderous assertions about what other people are supposed to believe). And I am glad that this is obvious to men like Mr. Gadbois. But here is the problem. Over the years of this controversy (five years now), it has been apparent to a number of my federal vision friends that my extra efforts have in this regard have done minimal good. How can I answer them? If one were to say to me, “Wilson, why do you do all that extra work? I agree with everything you have said, but I haven’t done the work of saying it. But, at the end of the day, you aren’t believed any more than I am. Why don’t you save your breath for cooling your porridge?”
And this is because this is a battle of ecclesiastical politics, and not, as has been ostensibly claimed, a battle for the truth. If it were a battle for truth, then people would be willing to acknowledge plain truth, even if it seemed contrary to their current political advantage. But they are not at all willing for this. I have heard, through back channels, that there are leaders in the anti-FV movement who would acknowledge privately what Mr. Gadbois says here about me. But they will not say anything like that publicly because warriors for truth have to fudge the facts a little if they are to keep up the political pressure.
The ninth commandment requires us to speak the truth. We are prohibited in Colossians from lying to one another — we have put off the old man, with its practices. We serve and worship the one who is the Truth. But in defiance of this obvious scriptural requirement, we have gotten to that point in this controversy where pressure, politics, more pressure, fear, and selfish ambition make it all but impossible for anyone to say something obvious, if it goes contrary to his party’s interest.
So let us talk for a moment about the tenet of Dr. Clark’s that I agreed with, the one without the iron boot. “I admit that all believers are fully justified now and shall be vindicated as such at the judgment.” I agree, Dr. Clark, and one of the things I will be vindicated from in that day will be your false charges.
“For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ . . . So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:9-10, 12)
We, all of us, will stand before Christ. You, me, Norman Shepherd, Rich Lusk, Peter Leithart, Cal Beisner, John Robbins, Ligon Duncan, all of us. We are (all of us) going to give an account of ourselves, down to every idle word, every motion at presbytery, and certainly down to every blog post. Because you have been justified by the free grace of God in Christ, this means that your misrepresentations of my position have been as forgiven as it gets. The judgment seat we will all stand before will not be that kind of judgment seat — we will (all of us) have to walk past the altar where Christ sprinkled His blood before we get to this seat of evaluation, where Christ sorts out our tangles. But when He sorts out our tangles, as He promises He will, you will shake hands with me, brother, and we will be able to chat in true fellowship while the angels are passing out the sheet music.