Pastor Grover Gunn of the Covenant Presbytery (PCA) has been participating in the discussions over at the Baylys’ blog that i linked before. In response to my charge of Hyper-Calvinism, he was (thankfully) quick to affirm the *SINCERE* and *WELL-MEANT* offer of the Gospel. Yet, he went further than that (and further than i ever expected, quite frankly) and affirmed that the Covenant of Grace has *CONDITIONS,* and that only those who meet those conditions will receive what the Covenant promises and offers. And what’s more, he and i absolutely agree (and i imagine all of the FVists would as well) that the elect are the only ones who will, by God’s grace, be enabled to meet those conditions. He affirmed that the obligations of the Covenant of Grace are: faith, repentance, and obedienc—even pointing out how the PCA BCO affirms such a view (56-4.j).

I actually gave him a little ribbing about affirming that repentance and obedience are conditions of the Covenant of Grace upon receiving the full, eternal benefits of the Covenant of Grace. I said:

I must say, though, that i’m very glad to hear you speak of Covenant “conditions.” To be fair, though, i must, question your orthodoxy, since you made “repentance and obedience” [another name for the works of believers] a condition to receiving eternal life through the Covenant of *GRACE*. Everyone knows that this isn’t the Covenant of *WORKS*; why make works even *PART* of the condition to receiving the promised inheritance (other than that Scripture says it, i mean)? Perhaps you just work the one into the other (monocovenantalism) and conflate justification and sanctification? No, i won’t do that to you. You’re obviously not saying anything unorthodox, but then, neither are the FVists, in my opinion–and in this, you seem to be in perfect agreement with them. You’ve at least done what many who oppose the FV refuse to do: admit that what God promises in the CoG are contingent upon his fulfillment of the conditions God set down in this Covenant. But since God gives grace to fulfill those conditions, we’re hardly talking about “works salvation.” But then again, maybe you’re trying to go down the road to Rome and bring meriting our own salvation in: start by grace (regeneration) and finish by obligation of works (faith, repentance, and obedience). Surely you’re not saying that the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers isn’t enough to earn eternal life? (Please understand that i’m being purposely ironic in this, since you haven’t said anything fundamentally different than most FVists i have read or heard!)

I didn’t do such a thing out of any animosity at all, but only i a jocular point that he’s saying the very same things that have been taken by many to mean something very unorthodox, but which are not in reality what they are assumed to be by those folks. It seems that he might become subject to the very same accusations that have been made against others with similar views about how the Covenant of Grace has obligations that have to be met.  

In response to what Pastor Gunn said about the BCO’s affirmation of those Covenant obligations and conditions, here is what i posted. Feel free to critique my expression and content as you’d like. My desire is to grown and be sharpened as i seek to sharpen others.

Pastor Gunn wrote: “Regarding your inquiry about my referring to the ‘obligations of the covenant,’ this language is found in the PCA BCO…”

Yes, my dear brother, i know. That’s why, for me, it is all the more enigmatic that FV advocates are being lambasted as though they are redefining something fundamentally about our Covenantal religion, when they, as it seem to me, are simply restating the very things that we have always affirmed as Covenantal Calvinists. The Covenant of Grace isn’t an unconditional Covenant (contrary to what many of the Hyper-Calvinists like PRCers and Clarkians want to claim), and we have, in our BCO, codified that view as binding upon all men in our church courts. In other words, we say very clearly that we believe that the Covenant of Grace has conditions, and if we do not meet those conditions, we will not receive what the Covenant promises.

Now, it seems to me that there are several implications from this. First, the truth of Covenant apostacy is upheld, and not refuted. There are people who are really Covenant members (not just “fake” Covenant members who are later found out to be no Covenant members at all to begin with), who will never meet those Covenant obligations and will never receive what they have been promised in the Covenant. Now, we know, by way of explanation, that the reason why anyone, especially a Covenant member, never does do what God requires is because he wasn’t enabled by God’s grace to do so, but that issue is the eternal and decretal explanation of what happens through man’s moral agency and in time.

Second, it affirms that good works (not perfect obedience) are a condition of receiving eternal life (that which is ultimately promised to all members of the Covenant of Grace). Repentance, unless completely intellectualized, always involves man’s works; and, too, obedience is itself another name for good works. Both of them are enabled by grace in the life of the believing sinner, and so both of them will be incomplete and riddled with many imperfections; and yet, they are both required in order for a person to inherit eternal life through the Lord Jesus Christ. Does this undercut justification by faith alone? Absolutely not! since salvation (i.e., the actual present possession of eternal life) is much larger than justification; justification is one facet of the whole of salvation, which will only be fully realized on the day of resurrection. Justification is by faith alone, and works are no ground or instrument of it; but works are still integral to receiving eternal life, because they are part of the ongoing sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit that will make the believing man or woman progressively more holy, until the last day, when that work is complete, and that formerly sinful and corrupt believing man or woman will then be spotless and holy in fact and not just in the mind of God (which is what the act of justification does). (BTW, as i have stated before, the final verdict of justification on the day of judgment will be an open acknowledgement of that “fact,” and not some other change of status that someone might wrongly assume by the use of the term in the sense of God’s reckonning a person righteous.)

Third, it affirms that the center of the Covenant of Grace is not the question, “How do i get saved?” (as though we’re dealing with a fire insurance policy) but of the question (as my very good friend Pastor Schlissel once said), “What does the Lord require?” (Micah 6:8). Those who, by God’s grace, *ARE* faithful to do what the Lord requires in his Covenant will indeed be ultimately saved, but that isn’t what the Covenant is centrally “about.” The Covenant is about a life lived in fellowship and communion with our Covenant God, who is, as we speak, transforming the world and subduing all of his enemies. He is making a new heaven and earth, and when we enter his Kingdom (which is just the present colony of that new heaven and earth in the old, waning order) and live in loving subjection to the King of all the earth, we will be part of that new heaven and earth; yet, if we enter that Kingdom and commit treason against that Kingdom, we will be cast out of that Kingdom (“into outer darkness”) and have no part in the new heaven and earth. The life that we live is the center of that Covenant Kingdom, and not simply the question of “How can i be saved?”

I say again what i have said before here: I don’t see what all the fuss is about? I don’t consider myself a Federal Visionist, but i do believe that i have alot in common with them–not because i’m secretly a part of their rebellious attempt to take over, but simply because they teach what Reformed Calvinists have always taught (except the Reformed and Presbyterian dalliances with conversionism and revivalism, which have become part of the individualistic Christian ethos in America and around the world).

Over at the Bayly Blog (i love those guys!), they put up a post today about the troubling nature of a blog post by one of the committee members who sat on the Ad Interim Committee for the PCA General Assembly that studied the Federal Vision. That post, originally from “reformedmusings,” by one Mr. Bob Mattes, an elder in the PCA (Please Note: I do not use those strange and cacophonic titles “TE” and “RE,” so if you see me say “elder,” just know that i mean what PCAs call “RE,” and likewise, when i say “minister,” i mean what my well-intentioned but inventive brothers mean when they say “TE”), basically says that the FV “misdirects” the mail that is meant for the elect to all Church members without regard to elect status.

Now, some of you will know that i have a great distaste for High and Hyper-Calvinism, and many of you share that distaste with me. Many of you can see where this argument is going, and you will also see that i won’t like it—not, mind you, because of am an outright proponent of the FV, but because i believe that it is Hyper-Calvinistic to claim that God’s promises of grace and salvation are for the elect alone.

Here’s the comment i posted at the Bayly’s blog under their post:

First of all, i’m glad to see that the Baylys have seen something of the bias that has been evident to a lot of people (not just FV advocates, but those of us who think that Christian love and fellowship shouldn’t be hindered by the small differences that are being blown out of proportion).

Second, to mention *SLAVERY* in a discussion of the FV is to commit the fallacy of “poisoning the well.” Since one’s view of slavery in general (much less his view of slavery in the antebellum US) has absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the issues involved in the FV (except that two of the men whose stance on the FV is unpopular also have a particularly unpopular view of slavery), the mentioning of it by anyone (even a man whose character has been vouched for several times in recent weeks by the Baylys) can only be an attempt to color the view one has of Wilson apart from the FV matter that will, then, affect the view one has of the FV, which Wilson advocates. The fact is, one can disagree with Wilson’s view on slavery and agree with him on issues about the FV, and visa versa. The things are not systematically connected at all.

Third, those who *DO* advocate a view of slavery in which they believe it can be practiced in a way that is biblical and non-sinful do so precisely by appealing to God’s Law and the provisions for governing slavery, and, of course, those provisions always make man-stealing of any kind illegal and punishable to the highest degree. The attempt to make the view worse by claiming that they believe man-stealing is a good thing (which they do not) are not only dishonest, but they are also men who can’t form decent arguments without resorting to illogical fallacies.

Finally, the post at reformedmusings strike me not only as biased (they are that), but also as tending toward Hyper-Calvinism. To paraphrase the overall argument made, if you are not elect, God’s promises are no good for you. I don’t see how this man can affirm the well-meant offer in any real sense if he is not even willing to affirm God’s well-meant promises to all Covenant members.

Basically the argument assumes that a name has to be listed in order for the promise of God to be good. However, God has promised not only the elect eternal life, but he has promised *ALL MEN* eternal life, *IF* they will trust in Christ the Savior of all men. God does give, in his sovereign grace, the grace of regeneration (and, flowing from it, faith and repentance) to all of his elect, and to them alone (in the full sense); however, it does not follow from that fact that the promises of God are for them only. The promise is for all men, and it is to be received by faith. If it is not received by faith, then it will not come to fruition.

If we were to follow the man’s analogy out, the reason he would be unqualified for the inheritance would *NOT* be because he got mail that was intended for someone else (this is the Primitive Baptist and other Hyper-Calvinist argument), but because he was never truly member of the family of the “uncle” that died. Had he been adopted or born into the family, it would have been his. And even if he were born or adopted into the family, if he were to break faith and be disinherited, no matter what the letter promised, his break with his family would have disqualified him.

Truth is, the traditional Calvinistic distinction between God’s decretive will and God’s preceptive will would have been able to distill out the equivocation illustrated in the post you linked. God can desire something preceptively that is broken and never comes to pass, because he did not ordain it in his decretive will. This goes for God’s desire for all men to repent and be saved (2 Pet. 3:9, & al.), for his desire for all men (especially his Covenant members) to obey his commandments (Exod. 20:1, ff.; Deut. 5:1, ff., & al.), and God’s desire (expressed in special promises) that all of the Church will be saved and sanctified (references too numerous to recount). That not all men respond, and that not all men obey, and that not all Covenant members are saved and sanctified is explained by the decretive will, but we should never allow the decretive will to so dominate in our thinking that the precept and promises of God are limited to only that which is true for (or to those who are elected in) God’s decretive will. That is to fall into Hyper-Calvinism.

This isn’t rocket science. This is just basic Christian theology. If anyone denies the sincere well-meant offer of the Gospel, he’s a Hyper-Calvinist. If anyone denies the love of God for all men (especially the love of God for all members of his Church and Covenant), he is a Hyper-Calvinist. It is one thing to believe and teach (as all real Calvinists do, from FVists to Reformed Baptists) that only the elect *WILL* be saved; it is quite another thing to say that the promises of grace and salvation in Christ are only ever *FOR* the elect in any sense. To say that causes one to stop being an Evangelical Calvinist (“Evangelical” in the traditional sense of the word), and causes him to start being a Hyper-Calvinist. Of course, this isn’t surprising, given the influence of the internet (cf., http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005/06/quick-and-dirty-calvinism.html) with the medium driving the exposition many times, but it is lamentable nonetheless.

I have often wondered whether the issues involved in the debate over High Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism, as opposed to “moderate” and “low” Calvinism, are at work in the antipathy toward the FV. I wonder how many anti-FVers would affirm the free and well-meant offer, God’s desire that all men be saved, and the universal sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. My sense is that you’d probably find that a tendency away from those things will also be (not necessarily always, but generally) accompanied by a tendency away from the FV.

I have to say one thing, though: it is very ironic to me that the only person with a coherent argument against the FV that does not misrepresent their position is an argument against it from a Hyper-Calvinistic standpoint. I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me, since, from where i’m standing, the FV is simply a focus on God’s preceptive will in Church life, dealing with things as they are in history, and not as they are in God’s predestination (i.e., the decretive will).

Anyone ever got the impression i mentioned in my comment? Have you noticed a pattern to the anti-FV rhetoric as being so focused on the decretive will that it displaces, delimits, or demolishes the preceptive will? I can’t help but thinking that’s really the problem here. Neo-Calvinism: trained in the High and Hyper-Calvinism that flows from the works of the Reformed Scholastics and Puritans; not all that familiar with the first- and second-generation Reformers and their views; reacts to the FV because of its more moderate Calvinism, which is the “free offer” language and idea inherent in their view of the Covenant; their indoctrination in the talking points (and not the finer points) of Reformed theology (e.g., “God’s will is never thwarted”); and their devotion to making all Scripture subservient to “the system” at all costs (even if you have to ignore the authorital intent, the flow of the argument, and the long-standing view of the passage throughout the history of the Church). I don’t know; it’s at least possible.