I’ve been meaning for some time to post something on The Federal Vision, where I stand and how I see some issues involved with it. Steve Wilkins recently published online a letter (pdf) he wrote for his presbytery regarding the 9 Declarations of the PCA study committee report, and I find it as good a time as any to use that as a platform to share some of my thoughts. Just for background information, I do consider myself in the FV camp, if there is such a camp, but there are still things being said that I wouldn’t sign off on. I give those guys the benefit of the doubt, and even the places I disagree I don’t see them as being unconfessional. I just don’t see the benefit in the position they’re arguing.

I was discussing Wilkins letter on a message board I frequent, and some my points of disagreement or misunderstanding of Federal Vision stuff comes out. It has to do with the “covenantal” vs. “decretal” usages of various terms (elect, regeneration, justified, sanctified, etc.). Wilkins talks about this in his letter under discussion of several Declaration numbers… 2, 6, and 8 .

Here’s what I have to say about that:
>
At the end of the day, though, I still feel that the “covenantal” versus “decretal” system that Wilkins is arguing for is confusing. I would opt for the second of the alternatives that Wilkins offering, and only add that I don’t like the “judgment of charity” language, because it suggests (at least to me, it does) ignorance and ‘just being nice’. While I believe we can’t know for certain whether an individual is decretally elect or not, it isn’t pure guess work. We have reasons to believe people are elect (and vice versa), and we should use them. I don’t think it’s just to be nice that we regard fellow covenant members as elect, sanctified, justified, etc. My position is that we should actually believe it, just like we do of our spouses, for example. We don’t have absolute certain knowledge, but we trust and believe it to be true… it isn’t that we’re ignorant and just giving them the benefit of the doubt. Rather, we don’t doubt… we believe.

However, I will take this opportunity to say that I do agree with Wilkins that he isn’t contradicting the standards in what he’s doing. I don’t see the benefit in pushing for what he’s pushing for, but from within his paradigm, I don’t see how he’s denying anything in the confession.
>

I also wonder what exactly Wilkins is referring to when he talks about the blessings experienced by Non-Elect Covenant Members (NECMs). Several times in his letter he makes reference to such blessings, either saying NECMs experience some blessings, or they do not receive all the blessings. I wonder what blessings they receive, and what blessings they don’t receive.
The same question applies to Peter Leithart, in the letter he wrote last month to his presbytery. He wrote, “Baptism expresses God’s eternal sovereign choice of an individual to be a member of the people of God; and those who are members of the church stand righteous before God, are holy, and are sons because they are members of the body inseparably joined to the Son of God, who is the righteous and holy Son; these benefits of baptism, however, belong finally only to the baptized who respond to God’s grace in faith; there are some who are made sons by baptism who fall away.”

When I first read that, I thought it was rather contradictory, saying that baptism inseparably joins one to the Son of God, but that the benefits of baptism only ‘finally’ apply to those who do not fall away. How can one fall away if he is inseparably joined? Reading it again, though, I think “inseparably joined” refers to the church (the body), and so isn’t what I thought it was. But I still would like more explanation on what that means, and also further development on the idea that a NECM stands righteous and holy before God (at least temporarily), and, if since the benefits of baptism “finally” belong to those who respond to God’s grace in faith, in what sense do they belong to the NECM, who does not respond in faith?

So there you go.

We went out to pick blueberries and blackberries at a local orchard on Saturday. The blackberries were mostly not yet ripe, but I managed to pick nearly 8 pounds of them. We ate some yesterday, and they were somewhat tart. But that’s neither here nor there. Except that it sets the scene.

As we were getting out of the van and getting everyone ready and all that, a rather old gentleman got out of the car next to us and started making small chat.

I was getting the stroller out of the back, and he started talking about how he wasn’t going to do any picking, and he could pay other people to do it for him, because he “made more money than he could spend” out in Virginia Beach. And besides, he wasn’t dressed for picking, and it was hot out.

Megan told him that they had lemonade slushies inside. But he said he’d rather they had a Budweiser. I went into the van at this point and didn’t hear how the conversation went, but when I got back I heard the tale end of Megan making a comment having to do with better beer (than Budweiser).

While I was putting sun screen on the kiddos he asked me what kind of van we had, and if we liked it or not. Before I could really give much of an answer, he explained how his son had totaled his four door pickup truck, and had bought a van for his family.

He continued to bring up almost random, but not quite, topics of conversation while we got ready the buckets for picking and all that rot. He asked what line of work I was in, and I told him. He didn’t care for the general sciences, he said.

It was probably inching towards ten minutes before all the kids were lining up and were ready to go.

He then said, “Are those all your kids?!”
“Yes, sir” I answered, with a smile.
He then quoted (or was it a paraphrase?) Psalm 127, and said that the Lord was blessing us. We agreed and thanked him, and moved to go to the fields. But he wasn’t done yet.

“But now” he inserted himself back into our lives, “is the important part.” He quoted another passage of Scripture, I think it was a proverb, but I’m not certain. It had to do with God’s Word in our heart.
“Yep!” we agreed. I then asked Geneva one of her catechism questions, “Where is God’s Word?”.

But he didn’t pay any mind to that. He was on a mission, it would appear. Not waiting to hear Geneva’s answer, he asked me, “What do I do for a living?”

I looked at him, somewhat confused. “What do you do?” I asked, clarifying his question. That was indeed what he was asking me, and so I said, “I don’t know” and began inching my family along the trail that lead to the field.

He muttered something and began walking closer to me. He said, “I quoted several passages of Scripture to you, and you don’t know what I do for a living?” He appeared to be astonished that I didn’t know how he made his living. But I answered him, “Nope.”

He shook his head and told me how he travels all around, and “everywhere I go, I preach the message of the gospel”.

At this point I interrupted him and said, “Well, you have a nice day. We’re going to go pick some berries.” As we walked away I heard him say something about not going away too soon.

I’m sure he thought he was doing something good. But the whole incident just reminds me of a time Megan and I were in a grocery store around midnight, and trying to decide what kind of ice cream to get, and a guy made a joke about he and his wife doing the same thing, and then forcing us into chit chat until he eventually started a sales pitch and asked me if I wanted to be his partner in some business he was starting.

In both cases, the initial kindness was a sham.

Kirsten Sanford, host of a radio show, This Week in Science, wants to start a Unicorn Museum.

It’s an attempt to mock Answers Genesis’ Creation Museum, but she is sure to state that she’s not anti-religion. “There may have been some act of creation by some greater being at some point in history”, she says. She just doesn’t think she has any way of knowing that. But any young earth creationist… you’re ignorant and blind to the world around you. In other words, you can be religious if you want… but if you are, you’re a stupid twit. And you belong in the Dark Ages, where everyone was a stupid twit.

So here’s my question, Kirsten… and I’ll ask here because when I emailed a question to her (that similarly challenged her interpretation of evidence), I got nothing. Is there no possible explanation for the observations we make that would be consistent with a ~6000 year old Earth? Be scientific about it, now… no possible explanation at all?

In reality, I think Kristen is all for religion… as long as it’s her religion. But everyone else’s, especially anyone with the audacity to believe that ancient book the Bible, is an idiot and their religion is ignorant.