Economists don't understand economics

Hoo boy. Did you know that the fires in Southern California are actually good for the economy? Oh, you didn't? Yeah, that's because they're not.

From the article:

"In the odd nature of economic accounting, this will probably be a stimulus," said Alan Gin, a University of San Diego economist. "There will be a huge amount of rebuilding in the next couple of years, financed by insurance payments.

That's unbelievable from a professor of economics. HT to Lew Rockwell, whose e-mail correspondent suggests that people need to be taught Bastiat's lesson of the broken window. Indeed, and in the spirit of offering people a choice let me recommend that people just read Harry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. That will teach you Bastiat's insight quite nicely.

The insight, in short, is as follows. Wars and disasters do not "boost" the economy. How could destruction ever be an economic boon, on the net? All the economic 'activity' that is spent fixing the destruction uses resources that would have been used on other things if the destruction hadn't happened. If the destruction hadn't happened, then you would have had all the original property still in tact, and other things being done with the money. If the destruction happens, then all that money goes to replace the lost property, to getting us back to "square one", as it were.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hey! They look a lot like us!

Do you really want to bomb this country? Why?

This is not a rhetorical question. I'd love to hear someone's answer.

And, yes, Cat Stevens is a hypocrite. So re-make the slide show using your own preferred song. Keep your eye on the ball, though.

Read More...

Summary only...

Should the hits keep on coming?

"Should we go into Iran, or should we already be there?"

That's your headline? Normally even Fox News is not that brazen..."fair and balanced," and all that. They usually leave themselves a little bit of wiggle room to perry accusations that they are blatantly biased. But this sort of thing leaves no doubt.

And, yes, all the other media sources are biased, too. All human beings are biased. That's not the point.

Read More...

Summary only...

What Anti-War Conservatism Looks Like

This is an excellent article by Pat Buchanan regarding Ahmadenijad. It also provides a good background, I think, to the sort of 'non-interventionist' foreign policy that is currently being advocated by Ron Paul. If any pro-Iraq-war conservatives have heard Paul's comments in the debates and elsewhere and would like to get a little more perspective on where he's coming from, Buchanan's article is a great place to start.

Of course, Sean Hannity says that Pat Buchanan is not a conservative, simply because he opposes the war in Iraq (!!), so I suppose there's no convincing some people about what is acceptable conservatism and what isn't.

Of course of course, the best place to start if you want to understand Ron Paul is Ron Paul's own writings. He's clear enough in his own right. But I like providing folks with options.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Warfare State and the Welfare State are friends

The Wall Street Journal's business blog asked Ron Paul supporters to comment on Paul's successful 'use' of the internet, and what particularly about that use has drawn them in. There are a LOT of intelligent comments in that thread, which goes to show that Paul's supporters are not the belligerent mob they are often made out to be. Ask an honest question about why they support Dr. No, and they will tell you quite politely. Tell lies about him or his message, and they will protest. The tone of these discussions is usually set by the non-Paul supporters, not the other way around.

But anyway, one commenter in particular jumped out at me with his explanation of Paul's campaign and how Paul is able to draw such a diverse range of supporters. I don't know who "Robert" from NW Ohio is, but I salute him for his concise and incisive explanation.

"First and foremost, you must know that it’s NOT Ron Paul that most of us follow, but what he stands for. For many of us that means different things. For some it’s the war, for others its economic issues. We have so many seemingly diametrically opposed view points on the campaign, it almost defies logic. But go under the surface and the commonality becomes apparent it’s INDIVIDUALITY and freedom. Ron Paul doesn’t want to DO things for us, he wants to get government out of our way and let us DO for ourselves. The reason so many Democrats are on-board is because people are finally making the connection between the Welfare state and the Warfare state. The two are forever linked. Pro-Interventionist Republicans are learning you can’t have economic freedom at home, when you’re spending trillions abroad. And Pro-Statist Liberals are learning you can’t force people to submit to your good intentions at home anymore than you can force Democracy abroad. People are waking up to the fact that America CAN’T do it all. It’s time for Americans to come together and fix what’s wrong at home, so that we can again be a Beacon of freedom for the oppressed of this world."

Robert

Folks, that is the message that makes it possible for Ron Paul to actually win this thing. He outflanks the typical candidates from both parties, all at the same time. And it can be summed up very succintly: liberty. It's not a hard message to communicate quickly, but it also represents a much deeper political philosophy.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Reading Passage to help you study for standardized tests

Getting back to some of that stuff from my "corner" of the theological world, I thought I would post this reading passage that I came across when I was teaching test prep for Kaplan. I teach part-time for them, for those of you who didn't know that, and I am qualified to teach prep courses for the SAT, GRE, GMAT, and LSAT. Anyway, in case any anti-FVers are planning on getting a graduate degree sometime in the near future, I thought I'd give them a head start on practicing their critical reading skills, which of course is one of the most important skills on any of the standardized tests mentioned in the previous sentence.

(Kaplan pulls all of their practice passages directly from actual exams. In this case I have taken a passage that I think COULD be on an actual exam, but as far as I know never has been.)

--------------------------------

Questions 1-5 relate to the following passage.

Salvation is relational. It is found only in covenant union with Christ. As we abide in Him, all that is true of Him is true of us. It has been the common practice in Reformed circles to use the term “elect” to refer only to those who are predestined to eternal salvation. Since God has ordained all things “whatsoever comes to pass” (Eph. 1:11), He has certainly predestined the number of all who will be saved at the last day. This number is fixed and settled, not one of these will be lost. The Lord will accomplish all His holy will. But the term “elect” (or “chosen”) as it is used in the Scriptures most often refers to those in covenant union with Christ who is the Elect One.

In the Old Testament, Israel is called God’s elect or chosen people (Deut. 7:6; Ps. 135:4; Isa. 45:4). Consequently, Paul and the other apostles refer to the members of the Church, the “new Israel,” as the “elect” as well (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 1:1–2; 2:9; 5:13; 2 John 1, 13).

Election was not something hidden or unknown to the apostles or the prophets but something that could be rightly attributed to all who were in covenant. Paul even addresses the Ephesians in startling language (Eph. 1:3–5), saying that they were chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world.” We have to remind ourselves that he was not giving a theological lecture but stating what was objectively true of all those in the church in Ephesus. Being united to the Elect One, all who are baptized may be truthfully addressed as the “elect of God.” Thus, if you were to ask Paul, “Do you know who the elect are?” he might have replied, “Of course! The elect are all who are in Christ!”

This is not to say that election is only “general” or “corporate” and not individual. God’s promise to Israel was both to the nation as a whole and to the particular individuals who made up the nation. Each Israelite was grafted by God into the body of His people as an act of His sovereign, electing love. Though the promises were given to the nation of Israel, every individual Israelite could say, “This belongs to me.”

Think of the promise Paul relates to the members of the church at Rome (Rom. 8:28–34). Throughout this passage, Paul refers to the “elect,” those whom God “foreknew” and “predestined,” and then asks these questions: “What shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? Christ died, rose again and makes intercession for us, who can separate us from the love of God?” Clearly, Paul is not stating promises that are true only for some unknown group called the “elect.” Nor is he speaking only to a portion of the congregation whom he judges to be “regenerate.” Rather, he is applying these promises to all the members of the Church who have been baptized and united to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6). Yet, in spite of these clear affirmations of their elect status, Paul does not hesitate to warn them against the possibility of apostasy (Rom. 11:9–22).

------------------------------

1. The author's primary purpose in this passage is to:

(A) refute a particular understanding of a theological concept
(B) elucidate all possible meanings of a theological concept
(C) advocate an inerrantist interpretation of the Bible
(D) provide support for a particular understanding of a theological concept
(E) oppose two understandings of a theological concept against one another

2. The function of "consequently" in line 13 is to:

(A) transition into a suggested consequence of denying the traditional Reformed doctrine of election
(B) transition into a suggested consequence of denying the existence of God
(C) transition into a suggested consequence of a word's usage in the Old Testament
(D) transition into a suggested consequence of believing the traditional Reformed doctrine of election
(E) transition into a suggested consequence of the Old Testament having been written

3. The function of the fifth paragraph is to:

(A) Refute the notion that Paul believed in an unknown group called the "elect."
(B) Provide support of an earlier claim that contradicts an established doctrine
(C) Provide support of an earlier claim that is neglected by an established doctrine
(D) Repudiate the doctrine of apostasy
(E) Provide support for an established doctrine

4. Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the author's argument?

(A) Examination in the original languages of many of the texts the author cites reveals that "elect" or "chosen" are used in those passages to refer to people who are predestined to eternal salvation
(B) Not all theologians believe that some people are predestined to eternal salvation
(C) The author has no formal theological training
(D) Much of the Bible was written by nomads.
(E) The term "salvation" has historically been used by Reformed theologians to refer to things other than everlasting life in Heaven.

5. It can be reasonably inferred from the passage that the author would agree with each of the following EXCEPT:

(A) the traditional Reformed doctrine of election is problematic
(B) warning a person against apostasizing implies that that person is capable of apostasizing
(C) the Bible teaches that it is possible to be blessed by God and then fall away from those blessings
(D) the Bible sometimes uses the same word in more than one way
(E) individuals can benefit from a corporate reality

--------------------------------

Me again. Go ahead and fill in your answers. No peeking! Send them to me at xonhostetter@gmail.com

Read More...

Summary only...

Let's see, what have we missed?

Yeah, I've been away a while. I am super busy and I don't really promise to do any blogging for a while at least. But I just wanted to give a quick update on what has happened since April.

I am a father!

My denomination has proclaimed me to hold to aberrant theology, sort of.

We've moved to Kentucky.

I am teaching part-time and trying to be a salesman full-time.

I have successfully defended my prospectus, which means I am officially "ABD" (All But Dissertation).

I still hate the way newspaper columnists write in short, stoccato paragraphs. Like these.

Whatever time I am able to put into it is going to be put into helping Ron Paul become president. Despite my cynicism about politics ("Why vote, it only encourages them," etc.), those of you who know me that I've been a fan of Dr. Paul for years now and the fact that he is actually making something of a splash in this earliest phase of the campaign for the Republican nomination means that I cannot help but feel inspired to care about politics. At least for this go around.

I still pull for Georgia with all my heart.

Good night, and good luck.

Read More...

Summary only...

The anti-FV challenge: Part VII

David Gadbois returns to DOR1

Here is an argument from David Gadbois made in the same conversation thread in which Lane and I first started discussing DOR1. David thought I dismissed it as a teaching of the Confession too readily.

Basic Dossier

Alleged Contradiction Between: Steve Wilkins / Westminster Confession

Source: David Gadbois, comments at Greenbaggins

Contradicted Proposition: DOR1: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight. (contra/pro)

Wilkins source material:

Answers to the Louisiana Presbytery (Already established, more or less, that Wilkins does deny DOR1.)

Confessional source material:

"God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification." (WCF XI.5)

"To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit." (WCF VIII.8)

----------------------------------------------

Argument Verbatim

"[DOR1] is a necessary consequence of WCF 11.5:

“God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification”

It leaves no wiggle room, that you imagine, for temporary justification.

Of course, this teaching is based on the unbreakability of the Golden Chain/ordo salutis in Romans 8, which Wilkins shoots himself in the foot with by quoting it.

And on what legal basis could the declaration of righteousness be revoked? This is, AT BEST, Lutheranism. It is not Reformed. If one is imputed the righteousness of Christ, which that declaration is based on, then it would be double jeopardy for judgment to come upon the sinner.

So this leads to a breakdown in our doctrine of the work of Christ as well:

"To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit"

----------------------------------


Evaluation

As was true two posts ago in this series, the dispute over DOR1 is not whether Wilkins denies it (it seems clear from his Answers to the Louisiana Presbytery that he doe), but whether the Westminster Standards affirm it. For them to "affirm" it, they must either teach it directly or it must be derivable from something that they teach directly. To refresh our memories, DOR1 is as follows:

DOR1: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight

So, my claim is that, while Wilkins denies DOR1, the Confession doesn't affirm it.

In Part V, we looked at an attempt by Lane Keister to show that the Confession affirms DOR1. We found that argument to be insufficient. In the present argument, David G. offers another argument that the Confession affirms DOR1, and he points us to two places in the Confession, chapters 11.5 and 8.8. WCF 11.5 tells us that God preserves those He justifies to the end. There is no such thing, in other words, as a justified person who ends up unjustified at a later time. One justified, always justified. And 8.8 tells us more or less the same thing but from the perspective of Christ's work specifically: Christ certainly and effectually applies the redemption He purchased to all those for whom He purchased it. There is no such thing as a person for whom Christ purchased redemption but who ends up not receiving that redemption.

I agree that the Confession teaches both of these things, but so does Wilkins when all the theological "jargon" is understood properly. Once again, we have to interpret words like "justification" in their proper context, both for the Confession and for Wilkins. When the Confession's "usage definition" of this word is remembered, these statements do not add up to an affirmation of DOR1. Let's look more closely (and parallel reasoning, more or less, will apply to the passage from WCF 8.8).

First, here's an almost word-for-word gloss on the passage from WCF11.5 would look like this: "God continues to forgive the sins of those that are justified, and those that are justified can never fall from the state of justification."

Now we plug in the “usage definitions” for “justified” and its homomorphs. Using the same definition (or something very close) which we've been borrowing from WLC 70 (see Part V), we get something like this:

C1: God continues to forgive the sins of those that receive a declaration of pardon at some point during their earthly life that includes forgiveness for all sins they will ever commit, and those who receive this declaration can never fall from the state of being pardoned by God for all the sins they will ever commit.

This is an essential part of the Confession's notion of "justification;" a complete/permanent forgiveness for all sins a person every commits. I am only reading in what the Confession itself says that "justification" is.

As things stand, we still need another proposition to really capture the Confession's meaning in WCF11.5. This is because C1 doesn’t actually tell us WHO it is that receives this declaration of pardon from God which includes forgiveness for all their sins. But obviously we know from our understanding of Reformed theology in general that this is only those who have been predestined by God to live eternally with Him in glory. We'll cut David and ourselves some slack and not worry about tracking this down in the Confession--it's Reformed Theology 101. So let’s add this in a separate proposition:

C2: All and only those predestined by God to live eternally with Him in glory receive the declaration of pardon discussed in C1.

Okay, so from WCF11.5 (more or less) we get C1 and C2. But what David has claimed is that 11.5 teaches DOR1. Look again at DOR1:

DOR1: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight.

Now, do C1 and C2 together allow us to derive DOR1? The answer pretty clearly looks to be "No." C1 and C2 are not even predicating of the same subject as DOR1, so it is hard to imagine how a proof using only C1 and C2 as premises could possibly derive DOR1.

In other words, contrary to David's assertion, there looks to be all kinds of “wiggle room” here regarding some sort of declaration of pardon to some non-elect people because C1 and C2 can’t be used to derive anything at all about non-elect people. They are predicating something to elect people, and to the “justification” that these receive. You can’t derive a predication of non-elect people from two statements that only predicate of elect people.

The "all and only" in C2 does not build a successful bridge to DOR1, because the thing that is possessed by "all and only the elect" in C2 is "the pardon described in C1." But the pardon described in C1 is a particular kind of pardon, a pardon for ALL sins a person will ever commit.

DOR1 is a more universal claim, though; it is not making a claim about this particular kind of pardon only but about ANY and ALL types of pardon. This cannot be justified on the basis of C1 and C2 alone.

The attempted inference that David is making goes from "all and only the elect receive pardon-of-such-and-such-a-type" to "all and only the elect receive pardon-of-any-type." That's an inference that cannot be made without some further information from the Standards, which David does not provide in his argument. There is just no way to get from these two to DOR1 without help, but no help is offered. [Note: Edit made in light of helpful comments. xrh]

Perhaps WCF 3.6 and WLC 68 will be re-enlisted to try to bridge the inferential gap. As we saw in Part V, WCF 3.6 tells us that the elect, and the elect only, are "justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation." And WLC 68 tells us that the non-elect "do never truly come to Jesus Christ."

But we already dealt with WCF 3.6 directly in Part V, and it doesn't bridge the gap succesfully. It tells us that only the elect are "justified," but we've seen from WLC 70 that "justification" in the Confession refers to a complete/permanent forgiveness for all sins a person ever commits. No FV person (Wilkins included) postulates that a non-elect person has this kind of complete/permanent forgiveness, and therefore no FV person would disagree with the Confession's claim here that only the elect are "justified" in the way that includes this kind of complete/permanent forgiveness.

But the non-elect covenenat member might still come to Christ in a "less true" way, in a way that still brings with it real but temporary blessings. Even a termporary "justification" and "forgiveness of sins." Why not? WLC 68 tells us that the non-elect do never "truly" come to Christ Jesus, but it alos tells us that they DO "receive common operations of the Spirit." Saying that the non-elect do not ever "truly" come to Christ, therefore, cannot preculde them from receiving any benefits at all in connection with Christ, because the Spirit that operates upon them is the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit whom Christ sent into the world after He had departed, the third Person of the Trinity that does all things in mutual inter-submission to the other two Persons. If NECMs receive operations of the Spirit, then NECMs receive SOMETHING from Christ. WLC 68 precludes them from ever coming to Christ in the "fuller" way that accompanies everlasting and irrevocable salvation, but FV thinkers (like Wilkins) do not claim that they come in this way, so there is no contradiction here.

I think this is enough to show, then, that David Gadbois's argument from WCF 11.5 and WCF 8.8 is also insufficient to show that the Westminster Standards teach DOR1. And, since it has not been shown that they teach it, then it also has not been shown that Wilkins is in contradiction with the Standards when he denies it.

Read More...

Summary only...

The anti-FV challenge: Part VI

Another from Lane Keister

Basic Dossier

Alleged Contradiction Between: Steve Wilkins / Westminster Confession

Source: Lane Keister, comments at Greenbaggins

Contradicted Proposition: F1: There is only one kind of forgiveness from the wrath of God as Judge. (contra/pro)

Wilkins source material:

Answers to the Louisiana Presbytery (Already established, more or less, that Wilkins does deny F1, but this would be the place to look to find where he does so.)

Confessional source material:

"Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it." (WCF XV.3)

"From this original corruption [i.e., Origianl Sin, xrh], whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions." (WCF VI.4)

----------------------------------------------

Argument Verbatim

"My point here is that the WS exclude any kind of temporary true faith, or temporary true union. I think the WS would view those categories as contradictions in terms. A temporary faith is not a true faith, by definition. A temporary union is not a true union, by definition. Wilkins wants to say that it is a true faith, a true union, only they are temporary. I simply don’t see the WS allowing for that category.

"...The WS define sin as being two-fold: original sin and actual sin. This distinction is clear in chapter 6 of the WCF. Furthermore, 6.4 defines actual sins as having their source in the original sin, or original corruption. It is a categorical statement: “From this original corruption…do proceed all actual transgressions.” To put it negatively, there is no sin that does not proceed from original corruption. 6.6 further states that both original and actual sins are transgressions that bring guilt upon the sinner, making him subject to eternal death. Furthermore, 6.5 says that the original corruption is pardoned in those that are regenerated. Plainly, there can be no pardon of original corruption without regeneration. Regeneration, by definition, reverses original corruption (though not completely freeing us from it, as 6.5 indicates). To be more specific, regeneration means a new heart. Through Christ, those who are regenerated have their original corruption pardoned and mortified (6.5). That is what I mean by “reversal.” I am on safe ground, therefore, in saying that only the regenerate have their original corruption pardoned and mortified. The categories of regenerated and original-corruption-pardoned-and-mortified are the same in 6.5.

"I would then argue that actual sin cannot be forgiven unless original corruption is also forgiven. If one needs to put it temporally, original sin is forgiven first, then actual sins. I actually believe that the forgiveness is simultaneous, but that’s another debate. The reason I argue this is Romans 5. The foundational issue for sin in Romans 5 is the sin of Adam imputed to us. That is original sin. In the architectonic importance of that passage, Christ’s work reverses original sin. Verse 19 “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” This interpretation is confirmed by the following context, where our being dead to sin means that we should not live in actual sins any longer. The logic goes from original to actual.

"So, in propositional form, it would look like this: 1. There is no pardon of actual sins without pardon of original sin. 2. There is no pardon of original sin without regeneration. 3. Only the elect are regenerated. Therefore. 4. Only the elect have pardon. 5. No non-elect person can have any kind of pardon, since pardon involves pardon of original sin, which can only happen if regeneration is present."

[Clarification of the argument in a comment]: "All actual sin has its origin in original sin. Therefore, the actual sin cannot be forgiven without the original sin also being forgiven. Otherwise, the branch (actual sin) has been forgiven without the root (original sin) being dealt with at all. This is impossible.."

------------------------------------------------------


Evaluation

The real issue is with the first sentence in the third paragraph of the Verbatim: "I would then argue that actual sin cannot be forgiven unless original corruption is also forgiven…." This doesn't appear to have been established, and indeed it strikes me as false.

Consider an analogy from the human realm and think of a father who knows he has a wicked son. His son has a deep problem with his nature—he is naturally disposed to lie, cheat, abuse, and exploit his way through life. Now say that this son commits a particular sin against his father—he lies to him, let’s say, and gets caught red-handed. The son feels genuinely guilty about this (this is just an analogy), and asks for his father's forgiveness. Can’t the father forgive his son for telling the lie without also forgiving him for his entire rotten disposition that led to the lie? “Son, I forgive you and will never mention this lie again, but you still have to get help. You have much deeper problems than that one lie. That one act was just a symptom. Please, get help and take care of the disease. Become a better person all around—don’t just feel bad about lying to me just now.”

It seems that we could call this “forgiveness” of an actual sin, even though the “root” of his sin--the son's corrupt nature out of which the actual sin flowed--hasn’t been forgiven. Now, if this is possible for humans to do, then surely it’s possible for God, right?

So, actual sin all follows out of original sin, check. And we might even agree that only the regenerate have their original sin pardoned, in line with Lane's interpretation of WCF 6.5-6. Double check. But where is he getting the idea that the only way to be pardoned for actual sin is to be pardoned for original sin?

Let me rephrase the argument: (1)All actual sin has its origin in original sin. (2) Therefore, the actual sin cannot be forgiven without the original sin also being forgiven. Otherwise, (3) the branch (actual sin) has been forgiven without the root (original sin) being dealt with at all. (4) This [i.e., (3)] is impossible.

(4) really just means “not (3).” So we can construct the argument like this:

P1: (1).
P2: If not (2), then (3).
C1/P3: Not (3). (From P1 somehow?)
C2/P4: Therefore, not not (2) (P2, P3, Modus Tollens)
C3: Therefore, (2). (P4, Double negation)

P2 - C3 clearly form a valid argument. The question is whether it is sound. The questionable part is the third premise (also the first intermediate conclusion), that it is impossible to have the “branch” forgiven without the “root” also being forgiven. It appears that P1 is somehow supposed to make this impossible (which is why Lane has the “Therefore” in (2) immediately following (1). Somehow (1) is doing the main argumentative heavy lifting to give us (2).)

The question is “How does P1 support P3?” Why should we believe P3 is true, based on P1? How do we get from “All actual sin has its origin in original sin” to “it is impossible for actual sin to be forgiven without original sin being dealt with at all?”

Obviously, if the “root” (original sin) hasn’t been “dealt with at all”, then a person is still in big trouble. But why does this preclude him from being forgiven for some particular sin he commits? This forgiveness won’t solve all his problems, obviously, but it will at least “clear” him of some particular indiscretion.

So, for now, I say "another one bites the dust." :-) I don’t see a good reason to accept P3. Certainly not based on P1 alone. And without P3, we can’t get the conclusion C3. So at this point I cannot agree that the Confession teaches that there is no forgiveness of any kind that goes to decretally non-elect covenant members. Which means that I also cannot agree that Wilkins is contradicting the Confession when he teaches that there is such a forgiveness for these NECMs.

Read More...

Summary only...

Even "all" has a context

In the debate over "Federal Vision" theology, there is a fairly short list of passages from the writings of FV thinkers which critics return to time and time again. At the very top of that list, most likely, is a passage from Steve Wilkins' article in the book The Federal Vision (2004).

In the course of going through all the blessings that Wilkins thinks the Scriptures claim for all baptized people that are covenantally united to Christ in this way, he makes a statement (a couple of times) which has driven FV critics up the wall. He says that this covenantal union with Christ possessed by all baptized people brings with it "all the spiritual blessings in Christ."

I've talked before about what I think this really means, and why it does not warrant the amount of negative attention that anti-FVers have heaped upon it, but I want to do this one more time here. (The basic structure of what I say here is also found in one of the "expansions" of the previous post.)

So, Wilkins says that "all spiritual blessings" belong to those who are united to Christ by baptism. From this FVers often reason something like this: final salvation (or "perseverance" is often the blessing focused on) is a spiritual blessing, so if the baptized have all spiritual blessings then they must have final/complete salvation (or perseverance), too. So when Wilkins says "all blessings" a clear entailment of this is that all baptized people are saved forever. Even though Wilkins never explicitly mentions everlasting salvation in these passages from his article, his statements about "all spiritual blessings" clearly have implications for everlasting salvation, no matter what he might claim to believe to the contrary.

So goes the anti-FV argument against Wilkins' statement in the article from the FV book (and he also says similar things in the very similar article in the Knox Colloquium book). But I don't think this is quite right. "All" can be qualified in at least two ways, and either of them is sufficient to make a more favorable reading of Wilkins' words possible.

This point about what readings are possible is actually very important, because the law of charity says that we should always read others in the best possible light. Futhermore, Wilkins himself explicitly denies that all baptized people enjoy final/everlasting salvation (or perseverance). Since Wilkins explicitly denies believing this, his opponents have to claim that he is simply inconsistent on this point; his writings and teachings are self-contradictory. This is certainly possible--people do contradict themselves in this world we live in. But such self-contradiction must be demonstrated. If Wilkins' words have more than one possible meaning, and on some readings he is consistent while on others he is self-contradictory, then charity requires us to give his words one of the readings that makes him self-consistent. This is fundamental to any scholarship and polemical exchange worthy of the name Christian, and it is a terrible failure indeed (academically, and quite possibly ethically) to fail to do this.

So, given what Wilkins himself says he believes--that not all baptized people enjoy everlasting salvation--what do we say about the arguments of his opponents that his other assertion (in the articles from the FV book and the Knox Colloquium) that all baptized people receive "all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus" contradicts this? This is where the two likely qualifications of the word "all" come in.

First, "all" can be qualified by the fact that baptized people only enjoy benefits in time "as they go" through life. The "salvation" spoken of in the Confession is a salvation that involves a person being pardoned for ALL their sins, being vindicated at the last day, living with God forever in glory, persevering with faith until the end, etc. But none of these things that can actually happen, in the strictest sense, until we are glorified with Christ at the eschaton. At that moment and forever thereafter, we will be forgiven for every single sin we will ever commit (we are not forgiven for all of them right now, even if we are elect and regenerate; because we haven't committed them all yet. While God is "outside of time," and certainly knows about our future sins, it doesn't seem right to speak of Him "forgiving" those sins now, before we've even committed to them. What is there, really, to forgive?) Likewise, no person, whether elect or not, can possibly "possess" perseverance in the here and now. The whole point of perseverance is that you are in a state of having persevered; you can't "possess" this until you actually have done the persevering. No living Christian can say that they have already done this. So these time-bound blessings of salvation that don't happen until the eschaton are not "blessings" that we CAN enjoy now in the present.

So as not to be misunderstood, let me be clear here; I am not saying that this is the ONLY appropriate way to think about these blessings. I think it is acceptable, for instance, to also think of sins as "pardoned" in advance, in some sense, but at the very least this time-bound idea of pardon ALSO makes perfect sense (and has precedent in the Reformed tradition, too). Furthermore, I'm not saying that we cannot enjoy the promise or the anticipation of these blessings in the here and now. God guarantees that His elect will persevere to the end, and the elect can certainly experience the full riches of God's grace in some sense in the here and now before their perseverance and full glorification has actually taken place. But, true as this is, it still stretches the meaning of everyday speech to say that the elect therefore "possess" their full salvation right now. They don't, not properly speaking anyway.

This means that, if "salvation" refers to the Westminster Standards' notion of a complete pardon for all sins that are ever committed by a person, and to a relationship with Christ which is everlasting (persevering) by definition, then no "time-bound" person (whether elect or non-elect) can "possess" that kind of salvation right now, at least not in the fullest sense. It simply is not a "spiritual blessing" that it is possible to have in the present, for anyone who is currently living on planet Earth. And when Wilkins says that the baptized have "all spiritual blessings" right now in Christ, it is perfectly reasonable to understand him to be referring only to those spiritual blessings which it is possible to possess in the present.

The second qualification of "all" is that we should consider the possibility that two people can possess the same blessing, but then "experience" it or "process" it or "receive" it in drastically different ways. So, say two people both eat a big turkey meal at Thanksgiving, and then one of them watches football all afternoon while the other falls asleep on the couch. But both received "all culinary blessings" of the Thanksgiving meal, despite the different results of thier processing it.

Now, perhaps anti-FVers want to say that the WAY we receive a blessing is ITSELF a gift of God, a blessing (at least for those who make a positive reception). I agree with this, and so does Wilkins I am sure. As Calvinists, we believe that ALL things are from God, including the way we respond to His gifts. But despite this being true, we don't have to speak this way all the time--in fact it would be confusing if we always described gifts in this way. We can talk about two kids getting the same gift for Christmas, and the crazy Calvinist uncle is just being annoying if he says "No, folks, technically they did NOT receive the same gift, because little Johnny was grateful for his but little Jane was not. So Johnny received an extra gift that Jane did not." This is true, but does not always need to be said. Likewise, then, with Wilkins' claim that all baptized people receive "all spiritual blessings" through their union with Christ: this just means that there is some "objective" sense in which these blessings are bestowed on all baptized people, but it does not entail that they all receive these blessings in precisely the same way. If we wish to tie this in with the previous point, we could say that the "salvation" or perseverance spoken of in the Confession are part of the "subjective" experiences of receiving the objective blessings of union with Christ. In the ultimate sense, of course, these subjective receptions are themselves "objective" gifts of God, too, becuase as Calvinists we believe that everything that comes to pass happens by God's hand. But, again, there is no reason to read this into Wilkins' particular statement here.

We Calvinists should be used to recognizing the context of "all" by now. In my most humble opinion, therefore, the fuss many critics of FV theology have made over Wilkins' use of the word in this article is much ado about little.

Read More...

Summary only...

The anti-FV challenge: Part V

(If you like, you can read the four-part introduction to this series of posts:
Part I Part II Part III Part IV)

Lane Keister has recently called FV proponents to "repent" of their views. Of course, he does this on the twin (acknowledged) assumptions, that their views do indeed constitute serious error and that this has been sufficiently demonstrated in the discussion between them and their critics. In the post Lane himself refers to a lengthy series of posts he has written as evidence for his claims that FV theology is unacceptably problematic. Lane seems to think that, at least as far as the substance of the two sides is concerned, the debate is pretty much over and the critics of FV have won the day. I don't begrudge Lane his right to think this, and he certainly has devoted an impressive amount of time and number of posts to advancing criticisms of FV theology (as he understands it) on his blog over the past several months. But I (unsurprisingly) nonetheless continue to disagree with him. I do not believe that the criticisms he has offered are as successful as he thinks they are, and I would extend that critical assesment to the criticisms of other "well-known" opponents of FV (that I have read) as well.

And so the first arguments I'm going to examine as candidates for the "anti-FV challenge" will come from Lane. The reason for this is that Lane and I have had several somewhat fruitful dialogues on his blog already. Indeed, this is a big part of why I am so struck by Lane's comments to the effect that he has already successfully criticized FV on his blog: because I played something of a role in the discussions attached to several of those posts of his, and I continue to think that most of his arguments fall short (though Lane himself seems an affable and intelligent fellow). It seems it might be helpful, therefore, if I go through some of those arguments here so folks can get a feel for where I and presumably other FV-sympathetic people are coming from on these issues. I hope those earlier discussions on Lane's blog already provided some opporunity for people to gain that feel, but here I am able to press the gas pedal in a way that I couldn't do there.

Again, though, this isn't about Lane per se. I plan to look at the arguments of other critics of FV theology as well. All as the series continues! Let's look at the first argument from Lane's blog, then, within the parameters of our template.

Basic Dossier

Alleged Contradiction Between: Steve Wilkins / Westminster Confession

Source: Lane Keister, comments at Greenbaggins (This jumps you into the heart of the discussion, more or less. For fuller context, you can start by reading my comment #22 and Lane's #24 in that same thread. For even more context, you can read as many of the previous comments and posts on Lane's blog as you want!)

Contradicted Proposition: DOR1: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight (contra/pro)

Wilkins source material:

various quotes from pp. 54-61 of The Federal Vision*

Confessional source material:

"Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." (WCF III.6, emphasis added)

"All the elect, and they only, are effectually called: although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ." (WLC 68)

"Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone." (WLC 70)

----------------------------------------------

Argument Verbatim

Why does WCF 3.6 *not* teach [DOR1]? We would certainly have to say that the WS never positively teach a temporary justification. The question, however, as you have pointed out, is whether the WS *eliminate* temporary justification from consideration. It seems to me that there are many passages in the WS that limit justification and other saving benefits only to the elect. WS 3.6 and LC 68 are only the most obvious examples.

It might be helpful here to look at the actual definition of justification in LC 70. [quotes WLC 70]. As I see it, there are some implications of this definition that are relevant. “Perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ” implies that the deal is done completely. If Jesus’ full obedience and satisfaction is imputed to a person, but only temporarily, then is Jesus’ obedience really all that perfect and is His satisfaction all that full? The only way that I see to get out of this is to posit not just a difference in the diachronic definition of justification which you have mentioned, but actually to say that there is a difference in the synchronic nature of the two justifications. So then, you have two justifications: one temporary and incomplete, the other eternal and complete. Quite frankly, I don’t see Scripture justifying this, nor the WS. Romans says in 8:1 that there is now therefore *no* condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (surely we would have to say that he is talking about those who have been justified), and that *all* those who are justified are also glorified. There doesn’t seem to be any slippage among those categories in the golden chain. Further, I don’t see anywhere in Wilkins where the difference between the two justifications is anything other than merely diachronic.

------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation

* First, a note regarding the Wilkins material. Technically, the passage Lane uses in this argument is not right. I wasn't clear enough in my own thinking and reflection on Wilkins' writings when we had the discussion originally, so I didn't catch it at the time, either. But, really, Lane should be drawing from Wilkins' answers to the Louisiana Presbytery in order to establish that Wilkins denies DOR1, not these passages from the "Federal Vision" book. In any case, though, we can let this slide now that it has been made where Wilkins' denial of DOR1 should really be derived from.

(Expand to read an explanation of why the article in the FV book which Lane cites does not establish that Wilkins believes DOR1.)

Wilkins never says anything explicitly about "justificaton" in the passages from pp. 54-61 which Lane quotes. Lane's own argument recognizes this, but Lane attempts to infer a denial of DOR1 from these quotes. Here's the actual argument that Lane makes for this inference, found in comment #24 of the same thread:

So the train of thought goes like this: baptism unites us to Christ, taking us into covenant communion with the Triune God. That union with Christ gives us all spiritual blessing in Christ, including justification.

So, Wilkins says that "all spiritual blessings" belong to those who are united to Christ by baptism. From this Lane is reasoning like this: Justification is a spiritual blessing, so if the baptized have all spiritual blessings then they must have justification. So when Wilkins says "all blessings" a clear entailment of this is that all baptized people have justification. Even though Wilkins never explicitly mentions justification in these passages from his article, his statements about "all spiritual blessings" clearly have implications for justification.

But I don't think this is quite right. "All" can be qualified in at least two ways, and either of them is sufficient to make it less than obvious that Wilkins' words entail anything about "justification" and "pardon of sin" whatsoever. First, "all" can be qualified by the fact that baptized people only enjoy benefits in time "as they go" through life. The "justification" spoken of in the Confession is a justification that involves a person being pardoned for ALL their sins. But we are not really pardoned for ALL our sins, in the strictest sense, until we are glorified with Christ at the eschaton. At that moment and forever thereafter, we will have committed and been forgiven for all the sins we are ever going to commit. But right now, during the earthly existence of a anyone who is in Christ, there are all kinds of sins which they are going to commit in the FUTURE. I don't think it really makes sense to say that God forgives these sins BEFORE they happen. Rather, He forgives all our previous sins because we are in Christ, and because we remain in Christ He pardons all subsequent sins when they happen. So as not to be misunderstood, let me be clear here; I am not saying that this is the ONLY appropriate way to think about pardon of future sins. I think it is acceptable to also think of them as "pardoned" in advance, in some sense, but at the very least this time-bound idea of pardon ALSO makes perfect sense (and has precedent in the Reformed tradition, too).

This means that, if "justification" and "pardon" refer to the Westminster Standards' notion of a complete pardon for all sins that are ever committed by a person, then no "time-bound" person (whether elect or non-elect) can have that kind of justification right now. It simply is not a "spiritual blessing" that it is possible to have in the present, for anyone who is currently living on planet Earth. And when Wilkins says that the baptized have "all spiritual blessings" right now in Christ, it is perfectly reasonable to understand him to be referring only to those spiritual blessings which it is possible to possess in the present.

The second qualification of "all" is that we should consider the possibility that two people can possess the same blessing, but then "experience" it or "process" it or "receive" it in drastically different ways. So, say two people both eat a big turkey meal at Thanksgiving, and then one of them watches football all afternoon while the other falls asleep on the couch. But both received "all culinary blessings" of the Thanksgiving meal, despite the different results of thier processing it.

Now, perhaps Lane wants to say that the WAY we receive a blessing is ITSELF a gift of God, a blessing (at least for those who make a positive reception). I agree with Lane here, and I'll bet Wilkins does too. As Calvinists, we believe that ALL things are from God, including the way we respond to His gifts. But despite this being true, we don't have to speak this way all the time--in fact it would be confusing if we always described gifts in this way. We can talk about two kids getting the same gift for Christmas, and the crazy Calvinist uncle is just being annoying if he says "No, folks, technically they did NOT receive the same gift, because little Johnny was grateful for his but little Jane was not. So Johnny received an extra gift that Jane did not." This is true, but does not always need to be said. Likewise, then, with Wilkins' claim that all baptized people receive "all spiritual blessings" through their union with Christ: this just means that there is some "objective" sense in which these blessings are bestowed on all baptized people, but it does not entail that they all receive these blessings in precisely the same way. If we wish to tie this in with the previous point, we could say say that the "justification" and "pardon for sins" spoken of in the Confession are part of the "subjective" experiences of receiving the objective blessings of union with Christ. In the ultimate sense, of course, these subjective receptions are themselves "objective" gifts of God, too, becuase as Calvinists we believe that everything that comes to pass happens by God's hand. But, again, there is no reason to read this into Wilkins' particular statement here.

So, I DO think that Wilkins would deny DOR1. He believes that non-elect covenant members (NECMs) receive some kind of "pardon" from God during their earthly life. It's just that I don't think Lane technically picked the right passage from Wilkins' writings to derive that teaching. Lane should have instead gone to his answers to the Louisiana Presbytery. (But click here to read a complication even with this reading.)

(Although, really, we could possible even challenge this reading of Wilkins' statements to the Louisiana Presbytery. In those comments, Wilkins clearly says that he believs that there is a "justification" received by NECMs which is different from the justification spoken of in the Confession, which goes to ECMs only. But Wilkins does not attempt any precise definition of this NECM "justification" in those answers to LA Presbytery. It is really only a speculation that he would include some kind of "pardon" in his definition of "NECM forgiveness." I think, though, that this is a very likely speculation, and am willing to go forward with it at this point.)

So, an evaluation of Lane's argument for a contradiction between Wilkins and the Confession regarding pardon of sins is going to have to focus on the Confessional material cited. Accepting that Wilkins denies DOR1, does this Confessional material cited by Lane really teach DOR1? I don't think it does. Let's look more closely.

In the first paragraph of the Argument Verbatim, Lane says that "It seems to me that there are many passages in the WS that limit justification and other saving benefits only to the elect. WS 3.6 and LC 68 are only the most obvious examples." But the problem here is identical to what we saw from the CCP Memorial regarding Wilkins' view of election. As things stand right now, Lane is in danger of committing the fallacy of equivocation, because his argument only goes through if "justification" has sufficiently similar meanings in both the Confessional material he cites and in the Wilkins material where Wilkins teaches that there is a kind of "justification" that goes to NECMs. But so far Lane has not established this at all, he has simply asserted that the WS "limit justification...only to the elect." Well, this is true, the WS do say that only the elect are "justified." But my neighbor also says that my dog is not a dog. Is this is a genuine contradiction between us, or are we just using different definitions of "dog"? If the definitions of "dog" are different, then it is the fallacy of equivocation to argue that our positions are in contradiction. And so it goes with Lane's assertion here about the Confession; we must consider the definition of this "justification" which the Confession attributes only to the elect.

Towards the end of considering the definition of "justification," then, let's look at the implications Lane attempts to draw from the Confessional language.

“Perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ” implies that the deal is done completely. If Jesus’ full obedience and satisfaction is imputed to a person, but only temporarily, then is Jesus’ obedience really all that perfect and is His satisfaction all that full?

I suppose not for the NECM, but it is still perfectly perfect and full for the ECM who receives the "fullest share" of that obedience and satisfaction. This would be a good argument against Arminianism, because Arminians claim that the fullest application of Jesus' obedience and satisfaction that it is possible for a person to have is one which still leaves that person expose to the possibility of going to Hell. There is no predestinating decree of God, based entirely on God's grace and not on anything within the creature, that anyone should end up in full glorification. Nobody is predestined in this way, according to Arminians, and therefore Arminianism (at least in its most classical form) does not hold that any person can have Jesus' obedience and satisfaction imputed to them in a way that is guaranteed to last. There simply is no such imputation of Christ's obedience and satisfaction, for an Arminian.

But this is not a good argument against Wilkins at all, because Wilkins affirms (against the Arminians and along with Lane) that there is an imputation of Christ's obedience and satisfaction which is guaranteed to last forever. There are people, in other words, who right now possess such an imputation of Christ's obedience and satisfaction that they are guaranteed to always remain in Christ and to end up living with Him forever in glory, they possess this permanent sort of imputation because they were predestined by God's grace alone to possess it. Wilkins affirms all of this. But he is also asserting a "lesser" imputation of Christ's obedience and satisfaction to all NECMs, an imputation which is not permanent by very definition but which can indeed prove to be only temporary. This does not reduce the perfection or the fullness of Jesus' obedience and satisfaction at all; it simply asserts that that which is experienced fully by some can be experienced less fully by others. God can, in His providence, see fit to "illumine the minds of the wicked so that they perceive His grace," He can "show Himself favorable to them [not] in order to snatch them from death and receive them into His keeping, but [to show] them a compassion only for the present." God can illuminate "some with a present sense of His grace, which afterward vanishes away." (All quotes from Calvin.) Such a temporary enlightening with God's grace in no way diminishes the fullness of that grace which He shows to others who are even more blessed!

But perhaps Lane will say that he is simply pointing out that, for the NECM who only receives Christ's work in a temporary way, that for him it is not a "perfect" and "full" thing. Well, sure--the NECM does not receive the "full" helping of Christ's work, since He does not end up persevering to the end and we know that all those whom God has chosen to give the "full" helping to will persevere to the end. But this observation doesn't do anything to advance Lane's argument against Wilkins. Because the WS, as Lane himself has just insisted we notice, says that the "full" helping of Christ's atoning work goes only to the elect. But that is something with which Wilkins fully agrees! Wilkins is only positing a group of people (the NECM) who gets a "lesser" helping.

(And, yes, I sincerely hate "helping" language to talk about grace, but work with me here.)

Look again at DOR1, it says:

DOR1: NECMs do not at any time receive a declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight.

What Lane has just argued, perhaps, is that the Confession says that NECMs do not at any time receive a "full" and "perfect" declaration of God that they are righteous in His sight, but this is not the same thing asserted by DOR1. Let's call this DOR2:

DOR2: NECMs do not at any time receive a "full" and "perfect" declaration of God that htey are righteous in His sight.

I am willing to agree that the Confession teaches DOR2, but Wilkins would not deny DOR2. The thing Lane needs to show is that the Confession teaches DOR1, not DOR2. But the phrase "perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ" in WLC 70 is insufficient for this purpose.

The only other argument I can imagine Lane might be making is that perhaps he wants to say that all experiences of Christ's atoning work must be identically and fully saving, or else the very fact of differentiation in the way God's grace is "divied out" to different people shows it not really to be a perfect and full thing. Christ's work must affect everyone the same way, or else it is not the full and perfect work that we claim it to be. This is another way of reading his argument, but what could possibly be the justification for such a claim? Calvinists already hold that Christ's atoning work benefits the whole world in some sense, even those who never come into covenant with God in any way, shape, or form. Calvinists already hold that God gives grace to the entire world in some sense; every breath a person draws is a gift of God. So it would be truly shocking to hear Lane (or anyone else who professes to be a historic Calvinist) say that. Nah, there's just no way Lane is saying such a thing.

The only way that I see to get out of this is to posit not just a difference in the diachronic definition of justification...but actually to say that there is a difference in the synchronic nature of the two justifications.

Right, which is precisely Wilkins' view as made clean in his answers to the Louisiana Presbytery. There is a "justification" received by the NECM which is different all along (i.e., syncrhonically) from the full "justification" enjoyed by the ECM.

So then, you have two justifications: one temporary and incomplete, the other eternal and complete. Quite frankly, I don’t see Scripture justifying this, nor the WS.

But this is exactly the point of contention! Where, precisely, does the WS teach against this view? Lane has suggested WCF 3.6, understood in light of WLC 68 and 70. But so far his argument for this interpretation has been insufficient.

Romans says in 8:1 that there is now therefore *no* condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (surely we would have to say that he is talking about those who have been justified), and that *all* those who are justified are also glorified. There doesn’t seem to be any slippage among those categories in the golden chain.

Well, the question about Romans 8, on Wilkins' view is simply what kind of "justification" and "glorification" it is talking about. Perhaps it is talking about the Confessional kinds of these terms--i.e. the irrevocable and everlasting blessings that are enjoyed by all and only those who are predestined to live with God forever in glory. This interpretation is perfectly consistent with Wilkins' "temporary justification" view; it would just be that Romans 8 isn't talking about that kind of justification. What's wrong with this?

The other option is that Romans 8 is actually referring to the "covenatnal" kinds of justification and glorification. Paul is telling the Christians in Rome that, because they have been united to Christ in their baptisms, they may have confidence that they are in the possession of Him who is able to keep them from falling. There is now no condemnation for those who ARE in Christ Jesus. So we need to STAY in Christ Jesus, by faith (of course), and in so doing we really will never have to worry about condemnation. This interpretation is unacceptable to Wilkins' critics, because they do not allow that there is any such things as "covenantal justification," or "covenantal salvation;" I'm sure it's also unacceptable to them because this passage is such a well-used verse in Reformed theology that suggesting a different interpretation of it seems almost beyond all consideration. But, logically there is no problem with interpreting the passage this way; it does not undermine the traditional "ordo salutis" of Reformed theology in any way. It's just that on this reading Romans 8 doesn't happen to be referring to that traditional ordo salutis.

I don't know which interpreation of Romans 8 Wilkins would advocate, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of a discussion about whether or not his views are in conformity to the Westminster Standards.

Further, I don’t see anywhere in Wilkins where the difference between the two justifications is anything other than merely diachronic.

He clearly does just this, though, in his statements to the Louisiana Presbytery. He does not go into anything about these two "justifications" in his article for the FV book, because that wasn't the proper topic of that article. There he is simply discussing the way Scripture uses the word "elect" (according to his reading) to speak of all who are covenantally united to Christ by baptism. He is simply not trying to explain all the implications of this, or to explain exactly what this means for all the other words in the traditional "ordo salutis" ("justification," "sanctification," etc.)

Summation

So, where are we? I think it is safe to say that this particular argument that Wilkins is in contradiction to the Confessional teaching on justification is a non-starter. Where "the elect" are defined as those who are predestined by God to live with Him forever in glory, the portions of the Standards that Lane makes use of in this argument say the following:

1. WCF 3.6 says that the elect, and only the elect, are justified.

2. WLC 70 defines justification is the act of God whereby He pardons all the sins of a person, on account of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ.

3. WLC 68 says that the non-elect "never truly come to Christ."

Lane's argument cited all three of these passages, but it was really built on WLC 70's phrase "perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ." This particular argument is, I think we have seen, unconvincing. Nothing in 1-3 above contradicts Wilkins' belief in a temporary and lesser "justification" for NECMs.

Read More...

Summary only...