I need to get caught up with Lane, being two behind. This is a response to his post here. Three points:
The first is that Lane points out an apparent contradiction between me and my friend Steve Wilkins, and asks “which one is correct?” The answer, of course, is that I am. Seriously, the quote from Steve that Lane offers is one that I differ with at face value. But my understanding is that Steve later qualified his views on this in his interactions with the PCA, acknowledging that the difference between how the elect and non-elect covenant member is a qualitative difference, and not just a difference in duration. That in my mind is the essential issue. But whether or not Lane has understood Steve at this point is a separate issue — he has certainly understood me and my insistence on the absolute necessity of the new birth in order to receive everlasting forgiveness of sins (the kind the truly converted receive). But if Lane’s complaint is that Steve appears to use “forgiveness” equivocally, sometimes attributing that condition to those who are not among the elect, I suggest he take his problem up with one who equivocates on a much grander scale (Matt. 18:21-35).
The second point is on the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. I said that FV all affirmed the heart of this doctrine, while we were divided on the mechanism whereby this might happen. Lane said that this was as “clear as mud.” He wants to know what I meant by “the substance” of what is aimed at by the IAOC. What I meant is that we are justified by the righteousness of another credited to us, and not by our own righteousness. That is the substance. The differences arise on the mechanisms of imputation — is it a forensic declaration as traditionally affirmed by the Reformed (some of us, including me, say aye), or might it be a function of union with Christ? All of us reject any notions of infusion. While a “not guilty” verdict is imputation, so also is “I now pronounce you husband and wife.”
The third point is that Lane denies that the view that the covenant of works is republished flattens the two covenants. I guess my only respond here is that it must be Lane’s turn to be clear as mud. He says, “Nevertheless, to the extent that OT Israelites had the faith of Abraham, they belonged to the CoG. The CoW was an overlay in the Mosiac economy.” But look at what Westminster says in contrast this:
V. This covenant [of grace — DW] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament (WCF 7.5).
An OT Israelite who did not have the faith of Abraham was abusing the covenant of grace. He belonged to the covenant of grace, so that if he did not have evangelical faith, this meant that he was a covenant breaker.
One additional point. Lane says this: “However, the aliveness of faith is not the reason that it lays hold of Christ.” But of course the liveliness of the faith is the reason it lays hold of Christ. If it weren’t alive, it couldn’t do that. What Lane should have said here (and what I do say) is that the aliveness of the faith is not the reason that Christ lays hold of me.