Taking one thing with another, Robert Godfrey’s contribution to Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry was really quite good. Entitled “Faith Formed by Love or Faith Alone?” Godfrey summarizes the original Reformed response to the medieval definition of faith (made complete and salvific when formed by love), and discusses the grounding of the Protestant response in the teaching of the apostle Paul. With just a few blemishes, the chapter was outstanding, and I had no problem signing off on virtually everything he wrote.
But first a quibble, and then a quibble with larger aspect. The first quibble is that in reproducing an argument from Calvin, Godfrey points out that Abraham was a follower of God before Genesis 15, but makes the point that until he was justified by faith alone in chapter 15, he was considered to be a “wicked” man by the apostle Paul. This wickedness is meant to emphasize just how imperfect the works of even the best of men are. The problem with this is that we are told in Hebrews 11:8 that Abraham’s life of faith began when he first left Ur of the Chaldees. In short, it is too simplistic to say that Abraham lived by “inadequate good works” until Genesis 15, when he was finally converted. The author of Hebrews describes his responses of faith before and after Genesis 15 in exactly the same terms. But of course, I do not raise this point in order to dispute the theological point being made by Calvin and Godfrey. This is simply an exegetical point.
The larger quibble is this. Godfrey doesn’t really get into the current fracas, only referring to it a few times. In these three places Godfrey registers his disagreement, but unlike some of his colleagues, he never moves into high slander mode. Here is the first statement. “Calvin anticipates the great error of many contemporary critics of the Reformation doctrine” (p. 276). That’s not so bad, and depending on who he is talking about (he doesn’t say), it is actually quite accurate. Calvin does anticipate the error of many contemporary critics of the Reformation doctrine.
The second place shows that Godfrey believes that what he is writing is relevant to the current debates, and belongs in this volume. He is more specific here.
“This misunderstanding of Paul suggests a crucial question for some of his interpreters. Would anyone ever read the federal-vision writers or Norman Shepherd or the new perspective on Paul or Thomas Aquinas or the Council of Trent and come with the question to them: Should we sin that grace may abound? That question would never, could never, arise for anyone who has read these teachers” (p. 280).
First, actually reading what we write has not thus far appeared to be a prerequisite to any number of critics. The accusation of teaching “sin that grace may abound” is not an accusation that would have arisen for anyone who had read the apostle Paul either — but he generated the accusation anyhow. In these situations, something else is always going on. Our circumstance is no different.
And second, this kind of accusation is raised in the current debates, particularly when we are talking about the objectivity of the covenant, the sacraments, and so on. What is the accusation of tending to nominalism (an accusation we have fielded numerous times) but a variant of this? “If you buy what Wilson is saying, what is to prevent an ‘I’m baptized, I’m good’ attitude?” And anyone who reads through my homilies on the Lord’s Supper will know that I emphasize free grace well past the point that would have given Paul’s unknown interlocutors the screaming moralistic fantods.
And third, not only have I been accused of antinomianism, I have been accused of being a hell-bound graceless sociopath. Shoot, in other settings, having to do with Westminster West, I have been accused by Scott Clark of being, ahem, the opposite of a prim Pelagian moralist — leader in a cult-like organization, sectarian, advocate of slavery, and so on. So I don’t really think that the “these-guys-inexplicably-fail-to-generate-slander” argument is one that Godfrey really wants to mount at this point in the discussion.
The third statement is this:
“The new perspective on Paul and the federal vision are not really new, but a reiteration of medieval theological errors” (p. 284).
Since he doesn’t give particulars, I can only say that, as concerns myself, and a bunch of people I know, I don’t think so. And since I agreed with so much of this chapter, I can only conclude that talking past each other at this point of the controversy is now politically mandatory. Doesn’t make it healthy, but there it is.