Green Baggins recently posted a call for repentance for those in the FV camp. Not surprisingly, this elicted quite a few comments (279 to be exact), and among them I noticed the following comment by Gary Johnson. Gary is one of the editors of the book I am currently reviewing (By Faith Alone), and because he occupies a position of leadership in this controversy, I need to respond to several things he said here. So that you can follow, I will put in bold the comments I will respond to. For the rest, I think I have already responded . . . multiple times.
Wilson admitted to Mike Horton on the White Horse Inn that he was aware that there were a number of different positions amongst the Federal Visionists themselves. He also said that his take on NT Wright was not necessarily the same as that of Rich Lusk, who has written high praise for Wright’s position on justification and the ‘pesty’ issue of imputation. Contra Wilson public statements, Lusk, like Shepherd, dismisses the WCF on the Covenant of Works and not only throws out the doctrine of active obedience, but speaks of not even needing any kind of imputation. Like Shepherd and Wright, a number of the FVers hold to a two-fold justification with the final justification being determined by works with an appeal to Romans 2:13. These representatives of the FV likewise define saving faith as ‘covenantal faithfulness’ and come up with a catagory they call ‘non-elect covenant member’ or ‘the believing non-elect’ who, according to Lusk and Wilkins are by virtue of their baptism, grafted into Christ ,and for a period of time temporarily possess all the redemptive blessings (including the forgiveness of sins) the elect have – save for the grace of perservence. When these positons are given their due comeuppance by the FV critics, Wilson goes into a rage accusing us of distortion, misrepresentation, slander and the like. In Wilson’s eyes NONE of the criticisms of ANY of the representatives of the FV has any merit( pun intended). It does not matter who it is, or what kind of credentials they might have, be Guy Waters, the members of the OPC study report (which include Dick Gaffin), Scott Clark, Mike Horton, Bob Godfrey and the entire faculty of Westminster Calif along with the faculties of Greenville Presbyterian, and Knox seminaries or Lig Duncan and the study committee of the PCA – in Wilson’ eyes we are all lack the ability to either understand or appreciate the insights of the FV. Futhermore, since we do not recognize the value of these innovations, and actually have the audacity to charge these men with error, Wilson carries on a scathing personal vendetta against anyone who dares question ANYTHING related to the views of the FV.
This is a textbook case of trying to stand and sit at the same time. In the first portion, Johnson helpfully outlines an instance (and there are many others), where I have made distinctions between what I believe, hold and teach, and what is believed, held and taught by other friends and acquaintances — whether Norman Shepherd, N.T. Wright, or Rich Lusk. (Incidentally, this means that, while I believe in a pre-fall covenant with mankind in Adam, and in the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, I do not believe John Murray and Norman Shepherd are heretics for differing with me on these points. Doctrinal disagreements can be held in a spirit of catholicity.) But then, after Johnson cited an example of me admitting the justice of certain doctrinal criticisms that could be made against some of my FV friends, he then goes on to make an assertion that would not seem to follow from this. “In Wilson’s eyes NONE of the criticisms of ANY of the representatives of the FV has any merit.” Except for the ones he just mentioned a few seconds before. So the real problem here is not that I have not made my position clear, as contrasted with other positions on the table. The problem is that I am part of the Reformed faith, and not a Reformed sect. The Reformed faith is the Mississippi, anywhere south of Vicksburg. A Reformed sect has a flow of water also, but it runs through a green garden hose, and we closed the valve three quarters of the way because things in the garden were getting too wet, and were starting to grow.
The second thing is Johnson’s gratuitous assertion that when any FVish positions, anywhere in the world, “are given their due comeuppance,” my response is that of flying “into a rage.” Whereas that is pretty much the only thing I haven’t tried. I have argued, debated, conceded points, reasoned, made distinctions, offered to debate publicly, made jokes, and hired three necromancers to cast a spell on the Mississippi Valley Presbytery. Actually, that last one is just an example of the next to last one.
And third, what Johnson calls a “scathing personal vendetta” is actually something else entirely. I have no personal vendetta whatever, although I do understand how some of my responses would be experienced by some of the more irresponsible brethren as scathing. I am reminded of the old political anecdote about Harry Truman who responded to a cry, “Give ’em hell, Harry!” with the comment that he just tells the truth, and they think it’s hell. So let me take that last statement, and edit it to something more to my liking. Compare:
1. Wilson carries on a scathing personal vendetta against anyone who dares question ANYTHING related to the views of the FV
2. Wilson carries on an effective rhetorical campaign against those who dare question anything related to the views of the FV, while refusing to allow any public and accountable cross-examination of their charges, such as would be provided in an arranged debate.
Why no willingness to debate? Still? Guy Waters, Gary Johnson, Scott Clark, Ligon Duncan, Cal Beisner . . . what about it?