Tim Asks, I Respond

Published on by D. G. Hart

Instead of a call to communion, Tim Bayly calls for clarity:

After years trying to explain Federal Vision to confused souls, I’ve taken to putting it this way: “Federal Vision theology is a program being carried out by certain men of Lutheran background, tastes, or sensibilities who are working to import Lutheran errors into the Reformed church.” Join me in this effort to promote clarity, will you?

So here goes:

First, the Reformed folks who the BBs most associate with Lutheranism have been (by virtue of the priority of justification in understanding Reformation teaching on salvation) the most critical of the Federal Vision.

Second, the rise of Federal Visionism has much more to do with Reformed teaching on the covenants than with Lutheran sacramental or liturgical or theo-political notions.

Third — and here’s the kicker, Doug Wilson, one of the BBs favorites, has been one of Federal Visionism’s greatest proponents.

You want clarity, Tim? You got it, sans limp wrist or moisturizer.

59 thoughts on “Tim Asks, I Respond”

  3. Oh, how fun, instead of Lutheran Crypto-Calvinists we have Calvinist Crypto-Lutherans. The $2000 question – were Nevin & Schaff at Mercersberg Paleo-Crypto-Lutherans? After all, they actually wanted the sacraments.

    Like

  4. Hey Richard,

    Touche!

    Blame the Lutherans for everything that goes wrong in Evangeli-mania, even though they broadly do better in Gospel preaching and preserving their tradition than most Reformed churches do.

    Like

  5. But Doug Wilson does seem to agree with Lutherans that regeneration (gained by means of water) can be lost. It’s like Adam—you start with it, but you can lose it by sin.

    Wilson assumes that two kinds of election in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants means two kinds of election in the new covenant. To do that, Wilson makes a distinction between the “covenant of grace” and the “election of grace”. His gospel is about grace enabling covenant members to keep the conditions of “staying in”.

    Wilson also seems to agree with Lutherans that even talking about decretal election is a theology of glory and a thing not to be done. Except of course for Wilson talking about decretal election being a secret and how it’s only rationalists and fatalists who talk about decretal election (I always wonder if those who tell us about the distinction between theology as God knows it (theologia archetypa) and theology as it is revealed to us (theologia ectypa) are describing that distinction as God knows it or only as it revealed to them.)

    Doug Wilson: “To see election THROUGH A COVENANT LENSE does not mean to define decretal election as though it were identical with COVENANT ELECTION. But we do not drag the decrees down into our understanding of history — we let God unfold His unchangeable decrees throughout the process of all history. The content of the ultimate decrees is none of our current business, although we cheerfully acknowledge that the decrees are really there and that they have an unchanging content.”

    It is charitable of Wilson to let God reveal in the Bible that there is a decretal election. When Wilson “understands” that we can’t understand decretal election, he fails to make a distinction between knowing that there is such an election, and knowing who is elect. While the Bible does not tell who is elect, God does reveal that all the elect and only the elect will believe the gospel. But with most Lutherans, Wilson “understands” the gospel as that which does not talk about decretal election.

    Doug Wilson: “Because of the promises of THE COVENANT, we may deal with election on our end, which is covenant election.”

    mcmark—When you are trying to get some things changed. having assurance of God’s election in Christ turns out to be nothing more than subjective pietism, and warnings of threats for those in the covenant of grace are way more useful. The Lutherans tend to keep the threats about losing eternal life in the background, as their clergy remind us—you have been watered.

    https://www.academia.edu/185285/Why_Luther_is_not_Quite_Protestant_The_Logic_of_Faith_in_a_Sacramental_Promise

    Like

  6. The Gospel Reformation Network endorses ‘Embers To A Flame’ Ministries (ersatz Business)………

    ……….which includes the $$,$$$$ – several thousand dollar/legally-binding-contract phase known as ‘Fanning the Flame’……….

    ……….which endorses Federal Visionist/N.T. Wright disciple Steve Wilkins, also a Neo-Confederate) as a valuable resource for church revitalization in the big, thick, complicated, and redundant Fanning The Flame Manual.

    By the way, FV-Kahune Douglas Wilson makes a big deal about men having short hair, but look on the cover of his book (below)

    http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Husband-Douglas-Wilson/dp/188576751X/ref=pd_sxp_f_i#reader_188576751X

    ……………………Dr. McCoy, we need you on the bridge right away

    Like

  9. Wait, the Bapterian Baylys are worried about the influence of Lutheranism in ostensibly P&R churches? What about the concrete influence of Baptists:

    “All our church officers subscribe to Westminster, though they are permitted to take exception on time and mode of baptism. Which, being translated, means we’re committed to maintaining unity and fellowship between baptists and paedobaptists.”

    http://clearnotefellowship.org/about

    Like

  10. D.G.

    You make some valid points but there is a little more to the story. I have no interest in carrying water for TB but consider these observations:

    We have a number of pastors in the PCA who wear clerical collars along with the obligatory black shirt and slacks as they carry out their ministerial duties. It might come as a surprise to hear that some even wear this outfit to General Assembly. As a former Roman Catholic I was more than a little shocked to encounter this when I attended the convening of the highest court of a Protestant church.

    Added to this is what some ministers choose wear in worship:

    http://www.providencestlouis.com/

    http://www.providencestlouis.com/photo-gallery/brian-steadmans-ordination-in-brooklyn-new-york/

    http://www.providencestlouis.com/photo-gallery/tim-lecroys-ordination/

    I think it is images like these that motivated the call to rid the PCA of “Lutherans.”

    Like

  11. Dave, I hear you, but why blame Lutheranism? Americans are much more likely to be Anglophiles — think N.T. Wright. Doesn’t he wear a collar? Heck, I think he spoke at a FV conference. (self-promotion alert: so did I, but my collar was buttoned down).

    Like

  12. When the Lutherans are invoked as a knee-jerk condemnation, the whacko-total-nut-job flag is flying….

    Like

  13. I hear the collar-wearing PCA dweebs talking a lot about ecumenism and giving qualified props to Rome. Are there conservative Lutherites who do this? Again, name a NAPARC minister who has converted to Augsburg, Wartburg, or…you know what I mean.

    Like

  14. Dave, sorry, but what’s the problem? So some are bringing a bit of decorum and distinction to their office. I favor Genevan gowns, but is that really so bad in the age of informality and laxity, even impropriety (think open tats and V necks in the pulpit)? Meanwhile, the Baylys are good with pastors taking exceptions to the administration of baptism.

    Like

  15. Jordan Copper—-The Lutheran Confessions contain citations from the fathers and medieval theologians along with Scripture to defend their teachings; the Reformed Confessions don’t do this….. Lutheranism has generally seen itself (as has Anglicanism) as a branch of the historic Western church in a way that Calvinism hasn’t….. While Calvin certainly held to a liturgical form of worship, the insistence on the regulative principle of worship essentially cut off the Reformed from continuity of worship with the patristic and medieval church.

    Jordan Cooper—The Mercersburg and Federal Vision movements certainly are valuable in their insistence on the catholicity of the church. I simply don’t think such a stance can be consistently held from Reformed perspective, which is why the Federal Vision proponents have been so vigorously attacked in Confessional Presbyterianism.

    Jordan Cooper—Some argue for such a union between sign and signified that one can refer to the “sign” while intending that which is signified as the referent. As Leithart rightly points out, this approach is unwarranted and becomes an easy escape for any who deny sacramental efficacy to argue that any text about the effect of baptism is just playing word games and doesn’t mean what it says.

    Jordan Cooper— In contradiction to the commonly understood definition of the Perseverance of the Saints, Leithart argues that one can have a true relationship with Christ and subsequently be cut off. He convincingly demonstrates that typical Calvinistic interpretations of falling away passages are unconvincing.

    http://justandsinner.com/the-end-of-protestantism/

    Like

  17. Baptism? No biggie.

    Any hint of effeminacy? Heresy!

    I think Wilson’s church accepts both forms of baptism as well.

    It’s all a symptom of morphing from culture warrior evangelicalism to Reformed churches.

    Like

  18. Jordan Cooper jumped ship from Calvinism to Lutheranism and bloviates the cliched misrepresentation that the “Calvinistic God” arbitrarily saves some and not others. He charges God as choosing on a random whim. Cooper is disingenuous.

    Like

  19. Hi Zrim – the vestments Dave drew our attention to in St Louis are about more than decorum and distinction in ministerial dress, aren’t they? Surely this is about certain Presbyterians doing the Oxford Movement Thing 150 years late…

    Like

  20. Ben, I suspect they are, but maybe someone here could get a little more specific.

    But my main point was one of priority. Here we have ostensibly Reformed pastors going uber-latitudinarian on baptism ironically worrying about Lutheranism infiltrating and Dave pointing to vestments. Ministerial garb is liberty, sacraments are not.

    Like

  21. I can see why you and Erik think little of the Baylys (I’ve never bothered to read them, other than following a link maybe once or twice thus far). They’re opinionated blowhards who aren’t very bright… (As opposed to us opinionated blowhards who try to be a bit more rational and sensible.)

    Like

  22. FV and Lutherans love them some baptismal regeneration; but as much as FV loves over-realized sacramentology, they don’t love it enough to overcome their hate for a law/gospel distinction.

    See here

    Like

  23. Thanks Zrim for spelling out your point – I agree that it was worth making… The B’s take on FV is truly out there…

    Like

  24. http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=62314107148

    Chortles,

    Thanks for your reply ~ if you are interested (and anyone else) – listen to the link above, and for focus, if you can’t listen to the entire presentation, listen to 37:37 through to somewhere around 42:00 or 43:00? or even better, up to close to 49:00.

    In this sermon audio, Dr. Reeder says that churches are not built upon the sacraments, but rather upon the Word and Prayer. He says that when you can preach like Peter, then you can baptize like Peter…..you can do the Lord’s Supper like Paul when you preach like Paul….(my paraphrase).

    Anyone? I know how I feel, but would like to know your feedback –

    Like

  25. DGH,

    Do the Bayly’s, Ironink, and Craig French find the picture headings to your posts directed at them as funny as I do-or, do you have to worry about meeting them somewhere on a dark night when no one is around? How long does it take you to find the images?

    Like

  27. Semper Ref,

    I reviewed a couple of months of Briarwood’s online bulletins, and I see no mention of Communion anywhere. Sacraments don’t seem to be a priority. But they do have a great ballet program, and an orchestra, …

    Like

  28. Briarworld is your culturally-conservative tall steeple uber-respectable downtown church gone suburban and mega. Harry is something of a dandy, wears a pocket square with his impeccable suits. He moderated a GA about three years ago — very slick, but was no friend to the TR insurgents who were maybe not respectable enough.

    Like

  29. Semref,

    I listened to that link about six weeks ago when you first posted it. Yes, it bothered me. I was also bothered when he said that certain leaders don’t need accountability; they welcome it, he says, but they don’t really need it.

    Like

  32. JohnnY, I’m glad someone beside me gets a kick of the images. I was especially delighted by that one. Plus, I thought if the BBs ever think of me, that image is one they must have. So why not play it up!

    Like

  33. DGH,

    I thought I was being ignored again so I appreciate the comment. Obviously your male parts are not as huge as the Bayly’s, Ironink, and French’s are. Last I looked Ironink was calling oldlife, moldlife.

    Like

  34. Re: Harry Reeder and Briarwood, CW hits the nail on the head. I’ve heard him speak at a couple conferences, and it does not surprise me he would be dismissive of the sacraments. I also doubt, though I may be wrong, that Embers to a Flame includes a section devoted to proper observance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. While he seems like a perfectly nice southern gentleman, he also gives off a strong “good ol’ boys” vibe that I’ve often noticed in certain sections of the PCA.

    Like

  35. Dave Sarafolean: “We have a number of pastors in the PCA who wear clerical collars along with the obligatory black shirt and slacks as they carry out their ministerial duties. It might come as a surprise to hear that some even wear this outfit to General Assembly.”

    Ben in Melbourne, AUS: “Hi Zrim – the vestments Dave drew our attention to in St Louis are about more than decorum and distinction in ministerial dress, aren’t they? Surely this is about certain Presbyterians doing the Oxford Movement Thing 150 years late…”

    GW: Brothers, when Protestant ministers wears a clergy uniform (including the collar) during their daily ministerial duties, and/or wear a Geneva gown or similar vestments in the pulpit, it does not necessarily mean that they are FV, or that they necessarily have Romanist or Oxford Movement sympathies; not any more so than a minister who wears a business suit in the pulpit necessarily shows sympathies for the typical evangelical model of the pastor as ecclesiastical CEO. Is it not true that many confessional Lutheran ministers who affirm the solas of the reformation wear the collar while on duty and clergy vestments while conducting the Divine service? Is it not true that even many Scottish Presbyterian ministers today (including strictly confessional ones) wear the collar while performing their ministerial duties? And did not even the Puritans, for all their anti-Romanism and anti-sacerdotalism and all their (correct) emphasis on the regulative principle of worship, often wear the Geneva gown with accompanying tabs in the pulpit?

    I agree with Zrim that a clergy uniform and Geneva gown can be an appropriate way of showing distinction of office and introducing much needed decorum into the Divine service. While distinctive clergy dress is not a biblical requirement under the new covenant, and thus should not be required as a matter of conscience or ecclesiastical law, at the same time as a circumstance of worship I think clergy dress is a matter of propriety (that which is proper, conducive to “decency and good order”).

    Think about it: The way one dresses can often display one’s attitude. The “uber casual” hipster pastor look (skinny jeans and a tee shirt look as in mega-church evangelicalism, or even the slightly more formal suit jacket with open collar look as popular among contemporary new school Presbyterianism), while certainly not disallowed by Scripture, nonetheless strikes me as having the potential to improperly communicate a casual approach to God. Likewise, the pastor in a business suit look seems to me to have the potential to wrongly communicate the unbiblical idea of “pastor as ecclesiastical CEO” rather than minister of word and sacrament. (I say this as a pastor who would prefer to wear a Geneva gown, but who himself wears a business suit to church lest I put a stumbling block before congregants who might misunderstand the gown.)

    In our general culture clothing often reflects calling (think, for example, of policemen, military personnel, doctors, nurses, etc., who usually wear distinctive dress symbolic of their callings). Why would it not be proper for ministerial calling to be signified by the clothing worn by the pastor? Why would this automatically be seen as “Romanizing”?

    Like

  36. Chortles, David C, David G, and Zrim,

    You all confirmed how I felt as well. Thanks for sharing as you have, and I really value how you feel and what you think. You make me feel as though I am seeing something which deserves a look, and further comment. I believe that your insights are right on the mark.

    Pastor Reeder is a very powerful and persuasive influence in the PCA, largely upon a highly uninformed denominational body pertaining to Old Side, Old School theology. If the majority of the people in the PCA were to learn Old Side/Old School, they would be asking more questions, challenging the bad stuff, and saying no to the crushing burden of the Law-based system and Christian-perfectionism that makes up most of the ‘machinery’ in the denomination. Probably, the only small groups that would exist then would be the natural and organic ones (two mutual friends or more), that just naturally occur, where the sharing is real, appreciated, mutually beneficial, and not forced or mandated like a program, especially one that costs $$,$$$ like the Fanning The Flame/Embers To A Flame model, based on C.J. Mahaney’s book and influence “Why Small Groups”.

    Personally, I think that a lot of people in the PCA, pastors included, are afraid of Rev. Reeder, and afraid to disagree with him. It’s almost like he is a ‘papal figure’ in the PCA in terms of influence and power. Briarwood has enormous influence as a church presence in the PCA, as well as Perimeter Church (who wanted their church design to not look like a church at all – weird), and others that would fit the bill. It really doesn’t sit well with me for Briarwood, Rev. Reeder, and others in the Embers/Fanning The Flame enterprise to be charging these churches $$,$$$ for a program that has practically nothing to do with Reformed theology (a tablespoon full), and everything to do with promoting Arminian influences.

    He and others hit pretty hard on internet pornography, but he himself has listed the ‘Outlaw Josey Wales’ as a favorite film of his on his Facebook page. Anyone seen the non-Turner Broadcasting System version of Josey? The Sondra Locke character-scene? Counts as porn by Reeder’s definition, and it is available on the internet, so it’s counts double (that scene, maybe one more before Josey blew ’em away). I myself am a fan of Clint (my favorite is Magnum Force). Counts as porn by the Reeder/Phillips/etc. definition. Also, since personal holiness is so highly emphasized, meaning ‘language’, and the lack of the bad, how would Rev. Reeder justify watching ‘Patton’?

    He also made some very troubling statements in his Embers presentations……such as….
    ‘the sheep don’t have the answers’………..’the church should be a deathtrap for sin’………’the scriptures don’t mention that Jesus laughed’ (my paraphrase)……..I detect a very strong dislike for the confessions and anything liturgical from him and others like him, even though the reformed monikers are the decorum of his ministry.

    Having said all that, this is a man who cares about godliness, holiness, and people becoming Christ-like. I know I would probably very much enjoy sitting with him and talking about historical topics, great quotes, etc. In my background, I came from a horrific perspective in the charismatic realm of the church, and learned so many things so wrongly and so badly. Reformed theology, learning the confessions, Word and Sacrament have helped me tremendously. I just want for him, and others like him, to not try to persecute us out of and away from the PCA, or try to force us to be in a PCA-mandated small group discipleship accountability structure, or promise to witness to 5 people a day, and all of the other unnatural things that go with being ‘Pietistic’.

    Like

  37. mboss,

    Thanks for sharing – I had already sent it, but wanted to acknowledge your thoughts. I agree – see my latest post above. Anything he says about the sacraments (communion) is on the order of the highly introspective inward-looking, as best I can tell from his writings.

    Like

  38. Geoff, thanks for the back up. I’m still left wondering what Ben means. Along with Dave, he seems to think it’s an obvious problem for Reformed clergy to don some form of vestment but has yet to explain. I think this is what the Callers call “begging the question.”

    Like

  39. Semper, I don’t know as much about Reeder, other than a piece in TableTalk I once read, which was pretty semi-revivalist. I could hear Alexander cheering in the distance.

    Like

  41. Zrim,

    Thanks – that tracks. I think he means well, but sometimes, even when we are sincere, we can be sincerely wrong. I was.

    Like

  44. John – Obviously your male parts are not as huge as the Bayly’s, Ironink, and French’s are

    Erik – No, just the opposite. Big rhetoric = small male parts.

    Like

  45. What I should have said is that the grandiose extra-testosterone laden don’t have to be witty- they just exert their Spirit enabled and empowered wills on everyone they come into contact with and wonder why everyone is not fruitful as they are. They usually by-pass the God gives the growth part-

    Like

  48. Zrim, sorry – hit the key – would you elaborate more on that idea? Was struck by what you said concerning passion/sincerity….

    Like

  50. Have to laugh at myself, I suppose (on the accidental key strokes – glad it’s not golf – I shot a 72 on 9 holes when I was around 11 or 12…….)

    The new George Plimpton?

    Like

  51. @Erik

    I think Wilson’s church accepts both forms of baptism as well.

    I think it is more accurate to say his denomination does. CREC permits churches who are themselves credobaptist providing they accept accept into membership believers who were paedobaptized in another CREC church. In other words personally credobaptist but tolerant (Piper compromise) is acceptable but ideologically is not. Wilson’t personal opinion is that paedobaptism is mandatory: To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism, Covenant Mercy for the People of God (1996).

    Like

  52. Semper, what I mean is that ours is an age that makes much ado about the subjective and affective, as if they are ends in themselves, even to the point of covering a host of violations of creational and redemptive goods. Passion and sincerity are fine in themselves, but as you say, they aren’t much good when one is misguided or wrong.

    Like

  53. CDH, sounds pretty Evangelical-Freeish. Oh the irony of being a psuedo-Reformed eeeevangelical critic yet mirroring them sacramentally.

    Like

  54. Zrim,

    Having been someone who ‘was sincerely wrong’ and also had ‘misplaced passion’ for years, I know firsthand what you mean. Well-stated, and thanks for sharing. It sounds like even though we have all come from different places and backgrounds, we generally are ‘in the pipeline’ on what this is all about.

    Like

  55. Semper, not to belabor the point but you give me opportunity to complain (who, me?). When in a smallish Reformed congregation wherein an otherwise orthodox preacher’s voice is sufficiently amped by electronic devices but still has a volume so loud you are distracted from the substance, the only explanation can be that experimental Calvinism is at work and he thinks passion matters at least as much as truth. Oy vey. /rant.

    Like

  56. Zrim,

    I can tell that we’ve experienced the many of the same things – does the name Samuel Rutherford cause some wincing? Or the Calvinistic Methodists? I presupposed Piper, etc.

    Oy vey/rant.

    Like

  57. Chortles, David C., David G., Zrim, and mboss,

    A couple more observations about Rev. Harry Reeder and the Embers To A Flame/Fanning The Flame program:

    He/they are really into making ‘committments/oaths/vows/promises’. It seemed like the word ‘committment’ was all over the place in the materials. Also, you should have seen the portion of the FTF Manual on leadership/leadership development. I don’t desire to be a leader/church officer, but it appears that Rev. Reeder goes way beyond how the scriptures define a leader. I think he has blended military standards in with the biblical description/definition of what a leader is/should be. I know you will see me object to ‘mandated small groups’ a lot in my commentaries, but I really believe that they present more problems to the church, and are not identified or spelled out as a requirement from the scriptures. How many leaders can take care of their families and also ‘pastor-shepherd’ 10-20 others? When I saw Rev. Reeder’s ideas of what a leader should look like in the Fanning The Flame Manual, it really turned me off toward any inclination/desire at all in the first place, and at this point in my life, there isn’t. But also, I believe that if this is reflective of the general ‘tone and demeanor’ of the PCA for the better part of the past 40 years, then no wonder church leadership is declining in numbers, it seems, or in retainage for the duration.

    Like

  58. Eh, coming late to the discussion as usual, but I think I can shed some light as one of the PCA ministers engaged early on in the controversy (I was tasked to respond to Schlissel in the Ft. Lauderdale Colloquim, in the infamous pink book now undoubtedly out of print and long forgotten).

    It is true that many FV men have Lutheran tendencies, ref. the sacraments and lack of perseverance, not to mention vestments and church calendar. However, at the same time, many reject sola fide outright (such as Schlissel), or are greatly confused about it. One is saved by covenantal “faithfulness” not a passive, justifying faith, cf. Romans 4:45; WLC 72. That ain’t Lutheranism.

    Which explains why some end up in Rome (or Anglo-Catholicism), not Lutheranism.

    Like

  59. Chris,

    Thanks for your reply. I don’t doubt that there are people who are frivolous in their faith, and discount/misread the aspect of the Law’s third use in sanctification. It’s almost like the PCA Gospel Reformation Network has seized upon those extreme cases (probably more infrequent by comparison with those who are desiring/thirsting after holiness) and created a ‘straw-man’. What is so interesting is how the Pietists subsequently embrace a form of Anglo-Catholicism (‘new monasticism’, as Michael Horton refers to it.) and how you described it so well above.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.