Well, the time has finally come. I have received my copy of Guy Waters’ new book, entitled The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis. It is my intent to blog my way through this book, offering my thoughts on this general subject for the edification of a bemused Christendom, and to do so whenever one of three conditions pertain: a. I am amused b. I am about to burst a blood vessel on my forehead, or c. I need to set the record, as they say, straight.
I will begin with the Foreword by Cal Beisner. Cal says that when it comes to soteriology, the FV is a “hybrid of three components.” Those three components he identifies as a modified Amyraldianism, a modified Arminianism, and a modified Roman infusionism.
“Original Amyraldianism posited a hypothetically universal atonement; the Federal Visionists hold that the atonement is hypothetically for all in the historical-objective covenant but effective only for the ‘elect’ . . . Original Arminianism affirmed that Christ died as a substitute to pay the penalty for the sins of all people. The Federal Visionists will affirm that Christ died to pay the penalty for the sins of all in “the covenant,” including some who wind up in hell . . . The third is a modified Roman infusionism. We are ‘justified’ at first by grace through faith but at last by the merit . . . of the works produced in and through us by God” (pp. viii-ix).
So let me say what I think about those three things. No, I insist. With regard to the atonement and Amyraldianism, I believe that Jesus Christ, by His death on the cross, absolutely secured the salvation of an innumerable host, each member of that host being known by name to God before the foundation of the world. I believe that the number of those so known and numbered by God can neither be increased or diminished by anything conceived by the mortal mind of man. With regard to the atonement and Arminianism, I believe that when Christ died to pay the penalty for someone, the penalty for that someone is actually paid. As a result, there is no one in hell for whom that redemptive penalty was paid. With regard to modified Roman infusionism, I hold that justification results from a legal declaration from God, as a result of which the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to me and Cal both. Since this is an accurate summary of my positions, the conclusion is inescapable. With respect to this modified Amyraldianism, modified Arminianism, and modified Roman infusionism, I have modified them all right — modified them right into Reformed orthodoxy.
I hold that, before the heavens and earth were created, God freely and unalterably ordained whatsoever was to come to pass, and this would include every aspect of every man’s salvation. I have my theological toolbox right here. What phrase could we use to describe this position? I know! Modified Arminianism! That won’t confuse anybody.
On to the next problem.
“In sacramentology, Federal Visionists offer a modified sacerdotal sacramentalism that borders on affirming the Roman Catholic doctrine of ex opere operato. The sacraments are objectively effective means of converting, not only of sanctifying, grace because they are administered by properly ordained people in the community of the faithful” (p. ix).
Now I have to confess that I am not as gifted as some writers are in detecting juxtaposed ironies. But then, sometimes things are just handed to you on a platter. Just a few pages later, Guy Waters writes in the Preface:
“My daughters are, through my wife, descended from men and women who sat under and, I trust, profited from the ministries of Solomon Stoddard and Jonathan Edwards. It is my fervent hope that the biblical doctrine preached from that pulpit in Northampton will, by the blessing of the Holy Spirit, thrive in the Reformed churches of my own and my young daughter’s generations” (pp. xv-xvi).
Solomon Stoddard. Solomon Stoddard. That name rings a bell. Who was he? I am wandering around here among these tombs that somebody built for the prophets, trying to make out the inscriptions on the plaques. Here it is! — he was that Reformed minister who believed that the Lord’s Supper was a converting ordinance. And comes now Guy Waters, praying that the biblical doctrine preached from that pulpit will once again be preached in Reformed churches to his daughters’ generation. Well, okay. We’re trying.
And lest I get into more hot water than I already am, this is as good a time as any to say that the previous line was an attempt to be funny, and not a serious attempt to align myself with the Halfway Covenant. Lots of problems there, created by over-scrupulous Reformed types. But I will say this — is it okay to read what our Reformed fathers wrote and preached back in the day? And learn from them? Or must we simply invoke their names with pious looks on our faces?
We got distracted there. Let me also point out that I do not understand what it might mean that we “border on” affirming something. If a black swatch and a white swatch are placed on the table side by side, does the black “border on” the white? If I deny the RC doctrine of the ex opere operato efficiacy of the Mass (which, actually, I do with enthusiasm), does this denial “border on” affirming it? Apparently so.
Now, if we are allowed to radically redefine the phrase, I believe that there is an ex opere operato aspect to the Lord’s Supper. Whenever someone comes to the Supper, something happens(either blessing or condemnation). But I deny the Roman doctrine with regard to what happens (as Cal defines it in his footnote 4). But both Cal and I affirm that when an unworthy recipient comes to the Table, such a person is, by his “unworthy coming thereunto . . . guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation” (WCF 29.8). Something happens. And, as we have just now learned, if we think something (anything at all) happens, our denial of Roman ex operate operato efficacy somehow borders on affirming it. These things are hard to follow, but it would appear that Cal is now in trouble too, right along with us.
He continues. He was recently reading a book on developments in Catholic/Protestant relations, and while reading one section, he kind of free associated.
“In ecclesiology, the Federal Visionists are more nearly Roman Catholic than Reformed” (p. ix).
What sorts of things were in that quotation? What brought this about? Well, for example, there was the sentiment that no one can have God for a Father who does not have the Church as Mother. This is the problematic doctrine taught by that pestilent troublemaker Calvin in his Institutes (4.1.1), and . . . wait a sec. Did we get the sides switched again?
” . . . so also the Federal Visionists’ ecclesiology, by taking the metaphor of Christ and the church as Head and body literally rather than metaphorically, nearly equates Christ and the church and so is the foundation of both their soteriology and their sacramentology” (p. x).
So now I confess that I am now officially lost. Take Head and body literally? What is that supposed to mean? As opposed to metaphorically? Is Cal saying that we are supposed to believe that Jesus is a literal head, neck up, and the body of Christ is the rest of the body, literally, neck down? I do not know where he got this, but I am confident he never got it from anything I wrote, said, thought, or dreamed in a pizza dream. It is not a literal bond. It is not a metaphor. The bond between the Bridegroom and the Bride is a covenant bond.
Okay, so Guy Water’s book is not exactly off to a roaring start. “But it isn’t clear just what it means to the Federal Visionists to remain faithful. One thing is crystal clear: it doesn’t just mean one believes the gospel, or, in the words of the Westminster Confession, that he rests ‘upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace,” for faithfulness means something other than faith” (p. x). One comment more, and I am done for the day. First, faith rests upon Christ alone. Amen. Faith rests upon Christ alone for justification. Amen again. Faith rests upon Christ alone for sanctification . . . now wait just Romanist minute! What is sanctification doing in here, right inside the defintion of saving faith (WCF 14.2)? One of the principal acts of saving faith is to rest upon Christ alone for faithfulness, I mean, sanctification? John Robbins, call your office.