Regarding the MARS Testimony
[Originally posted on my Rabbisaul blog May 26 2007]
I don’t have time at the moment to deal with this document of my alma mater at length. But for now, I’d like to offer a handful of very brief points….
1. Douglas Wilson has engaged the Mid-America faculty on the issue of the ninth commandment, and how the Testimony violates it. This doesn’t seem all that clear to the MARS folk, which I find a bit mystifying. If one identifies a group or groups, and then proceeds to identify a series of errors, surely it is natural to assume that all the errors in view are indeed held by real people, and indeed by the preponderance of the best-known representatives of said groups. Yet the document in question names things that I’m not aware of ANYONE holding, much less anyone among the so-called FV (“big guns” or not). And that is the underlying issue with the failure to name names. Yes, you can omit specifics if everything you say is clear and universal – but that is far from the case. And the result is, of necessity, the defaming of real men with real ministries. How is that not a violation of the ninth commandment?
2. Even aside from the horrible inaccuracies in the Testimony regarding what those associated with the so-called “Federal Vision” conversation actually hold, the Testimony, while claiming simply to be upholding the confessional Reformed faith, advocates some rather curious positions as outright necessary to faithful testimony to the gospel. Here are a few examples of absurdities in the “denials” section of the Testimony (which begins thus: “By way of summary, the various proponents of the current set of errors, which find their focus in an erroneous and moralistic doctrine of justification, teach some or all of the following errors:”):
2. that gospel precedes law in the divine/human relationship before the fall.
What exactly does this mean? “Gospel” = good news. If “gospel” is taken to refer to the post-fall redemption in Christ (as the Testimony later goes on to speak of in Art 26), then this clause is a tautology – nobody thinks Adam needed “gospel” in that sense. On the other hand, if it is a denial that Adam was given favour prior to being laden with commands, that’s just silly. Before God told Adam to do anything, He formed him from the dust, then “glorified” him by breathing into him by His Spirit, and then moved him from the ground from which he was created and placed him in the Garden. So this objection is either meaningless or plain wrong.
3. that, before the fall, grace circumvents God’s law in this relationship; or that, prior to the fall, for God to demand obedience and righteousness from humans in order to enjoy fellowship with him is works righteousness.
(See also 4.) Not quibbling here with the substance – this is an error that ought to be rejected. But just a note to unwary readers: although I think this is a position held by someone in contemporary scholarship, no one associated with the Federal Vision holds anything like it. (In fact, I don’t think it’s held by any prominent NPP folk either.) And that brings up the further problem here: by naming a few scattered movements and mixing up a bunch of errors, this Testimony cannot help but bring innocent victims under fire. This is made even worse by the introduction above, which calls this a “current set of errors,” which would seem to imply they are related in some way.
5. that there was no probationary period or test of man’s obedience in paradise;
6. that the pre-fall covenant in paradise contained or implied no eschatological promise.
Again – not aware of any FVer who denies these.
That’s just a sampling. I’m not going to go through these point by point (which really could be done, since most of the time, the Testimony is firing at nobody I’m aware of, and I’m pretty conversant with both the Federal Vision folk and the very much distinct NPPers), but I do wish to take note of a couple egregious errors.
28. that justification is incomplete, and that there will be a final or second justification on judgment day.
The Testimony here thus asserts that there will be no final or “second” justification. Trouble is, Scripture everywhere teaches that there will be a final judgment, both for the believer and for the unbeliever. But if that is so, there of necessity will be final justification and condemnation. To assert otherwise is tantamount to denying a final judgment.
We affirm the perpetuity of God’s law in the divine/human relationship—pre-fall, post-fall, in redemption,
Doctrinal Testimony Regarding Recent Errors 23
and in glory, for God is unchangeable and he does not deny his justice in order to save his sinful people (HC, Q/A 6, 9, 11, 12, 16-18, 86, 90-91, 115; BC, 14, 20; CD, III/IV:4; WCF, 4:2; 15:2; 16:1-2; 19:1-2, 5-7; 20:1; LC, Q/A 17, 86, 91-97).
We deny that God’s law is set aside in order to save sinners, as if Christ’s meritorious and redemptive work of salvation is not the strict fulfillment of the law of God on behalf of his people.
The notion of “the perpetuity of God’s law” is fundamentally wrong. Now, of course, the issue is not one of God letting down His righteous standard to make things easier for sinners. But any careful reading of Scripture shows that His standards for human beings have changed. Arguing from the immutability of God is a non sequitur. The issue is not God’s immutability, but the changing circumstances into which God places His creature. The new covenant obligations are frankly not the same as the Mosaic law, and that’s a great deal of what Paul is on about in a number of his letters.
Then further, the Testimony makes Christ’s redemption the “strict fulfillment of the law of God on behalf of His people.” What does that mean, exactly? My guess is that it’s about the imputation of Christ’s active obedience as defined by the law. For my response to that idea, see the link below to my letter on IAO.
We deny that Christ purchased any temporal saving benefits for the reprobate, even those that are members of the visible church, such that they would be redeemed, effectually called, justified, and sanctified only for a time; and, conversely, we deny the teaching that some of the chosen can perish and do in fact perish eternally, with no decision of God to prevent it (CD, I, rejection of errors 6).
I understand and agree with the general concern here, but the above was written recklessly. The reprobate cannot be said to be “redeemed”? Why, God says that He redeemed all Israel from Egypt. More to the point, Peter says that those who fall away deny the Lord who bought them (2 Pet 2.1), which is presumably how the term redeemed is being employed here. Likewise, Hebrews 10.29 implies only a temporary sanctification for those who trample the blood of the (new) covenant. And we could multiply texts which show that various facets of “salvation” are afforded to those who fall away.
We affirm that the covenant of grace, as to its saving purpose, is a bequeathal by Christ the Testator, and therefore is testamentary in character and made with the elect in Christ alone (WCF, 7:3; LC, Q/A 31; FCH, 4-5, 13-14).
The covenant of grace is made with the elect alone? Ouch. Very much an unfortunate narrowing of the Reformed tradition…. Or what sort of weight is being placed upon that phrase, “as to its saving purpose”? Not helpful.
We deny that the non-elect are ever united or engrafted to Christ, share in his saving benefits, and enjoy fellowship with God through the blood of Christ.
The non-elect are never united or engrafted to Christ? Isn’t the language of “engrafting” drawn from John 15, which surely implies otherwise?
We deny that God imputes faith itself, the act of believing, or any other obedience as the believer’s righteousness (WCF, 11:1; LC, Q/A 72-73; BC, 22; HC, Q/A 61).
Here again is one of those conundrums. We certainly believe that Jesus is our substitutionary lamb. He is indeed our righteousness. But still… in Romans 4 (John Piper notwithstanding), citing Genesis 15, Paul quite clearly says that God counts faith as righteousness. Rather than simply making affirmations and denials, someone has to be more careful and nuanced and try to figure out how all of this fits together.
Much of the MARS Testimony is convoluted, exceedingly misleading as to what real people teach, and is generally unhelpful as a succinct exposition of the biblical gospel.
I do not wish to suggest the Testimony is all bad. In truth, there is a great deal in the Affirmations section which is plain vanilla Reformed teaching, and can be agreed upon by all of us. (It’s just too bad that there is an inevitable underlying air that a lot of the basic stuff is not in fact shared by all of us.)
In particular, I appreciate this: “We deny that the doctrine of election is rightly conceived when it is preached in a way that calls into question the promise and call of the gospel in the Word and sacraments.” Now, that is helpful.
For those who may wish to follow through on some of what I have written on related subjects, take note especially of the following:
Letter on the imputation of Christ’s active obedience
More thoughts on how faith is necessary throughout salvation history, and is grounded in the Trinity