Green Baggins

I see that this helpful book on Exodus is again available (though I recommend it only to critical readers, as the author has some problems).

Response to Declaration 1, Response to Declaration 2, part 1, Response to Declaration 2, part 2, Response to Declaration 2, part 3, Response to Declarations 3 and 4, Response to Declaration 5, Response to Declaration 6, Response to Declaration 7, Response to Declaration 8, Response to Declaration 9

Wilkins’s response to declaration 9 is actually much less problematic than any of the other sections of his response. However, he does lapse when he forgets the distinction between justification being based on something, versus being in accordance with something. The failure to appreciate this distinction leads Wilkins to misunderstand declaration 9. The ninth declaration is not denying that the final verdict is “according to” (or in accordance with) our works. Rather, it says that our final verdict is not based on our works. Let me carefully explain this difference (which involves walking a razor edge, by the way!). In the final acquittal (which in no way conflicts with the present finality of justification, since the final acquittal is not a new declaration, but rather a making public in front of the whole world what has already been declared in the throne room of God when we come to faith), works serve as evidence of the reality of our justification. This is what “according to” means in the WS. The world accuses Christians of not really being right with God. God is going to show the world our works, which flow from justification, and say, “See, world? You falsely accused my sons and daughters. Contrary to your assertions, these works prove that they really were justified, since such works can only come from someone who is justified. They are acquitted, and you are not, since you show no evidence of belief by your works.” In this way, works serve an evidentiary purpose on the Day of Judgment. What the committee is rejecting is any way, shape or form of saying that the final justification is based on our works. By using this term in this way, the phrase “based on” is clearly a synonym for “ground,” or “cause.” Failure to see this distinction is also problematic in N.T. Wright’s theology, where he says that present justification is not based on our works, but future justification is based on the whole life lived. There is at best equivocation there, and at worst a wrong attribution for the place of works. And, contrary to Meyers, this distinction is vital to maintain. It is not some antiquated scholastic distinction, but rather a very helpful one.

For those who may have decent-sized commutes to work, but would like something better than the drivel that is usually pasted onto the child’s drawing board of “Christian” radio (how’s that for mixed metaphors?), here is your answer.

Chapter 19 of RINE is entitled “Blessings and Curses.” There are several helpful things in here I want to point out. However, before I get to that, I have to point out something with which I have “issues.”

Wilson’s very first sentence reads like this: “We must learn how to speak with scriptural lnaguage, rather than with the misleading language that comes from our feeble efforts at reasoning” (pg. 157). Now, in context, Wilson is dealing with the makeup of blessings and curses in the covenant. Wilson’s point seems to be that some things are meant for blessing (such as the cup of communion), and not for blessing and cursing both. However, as he will say later on, for covenant breakers, the covenant has curses in store. However, my problem lies with the fact that his first sentence appears to be a general principle. This is indicated by the “for example” at the beginning of the second sentence, which indicates that he has stated a broad principle, which he then goes on to illustrate. Let me be clear: my problem is not with using Scriptural language. By all means, let us do so. However, Scriptural language needs always to be interpreted. Just “using Scriptural language” begs the question of whether we are using it correctly. This will always involve, as Wilson says, “our feeble efforts at reasoning.” Any heretic can use the ipsissima verba of Scripture. Not every heretic uses it correctly. In fact, in the matter in which they are heretics, they are using it wrongly. Wilson seems to be implying here that it is possible to use Scriptural language correctly without interpretation (since interpretation always involves our reasoning). Is Wilson ignoring the fact that the Holy Spirit blesses those “feeble reasoning efforts,” such that the church is guided into all truth? Is Wilson disparaging systematic theology here? Maybe this is reading too much into one sentence. Clarification would be helpful here.

That being said, the rest of chapter has many helpful things in it. His illustration with David Hume I found to be helpful. His conclusion about saying that we can never draw conclusions about why something is happening: “This means they cannot interpret how their life is going at all” (pg. 158). Indeed. Wilson takes the middle path of avoiding presumptive knowledge of the will of God, and, on the other hand, not knowing anything about the will of God. We can draw some conclusions. We can know by faith whether something is a blessing or not. Wilson offers a helpful caution as well: “We have to take care that we do not make any of these evaluations on the basis of short term thinking” (pg. 159). A great example: “Those who taunted Jesus on the cross were three days off in their calculations” (pg. 159), a great way of putting that.

The only other issue I would raise here is the issue of who belongs to the covenant. Wilson’s paradigm seems to be that all baptized people are in the covenant, some for blessing (the elect), and some for cursing (the non-elect), although I’m sure that Wilson would add that some of what the non-elect receive is blessing for a time, which only turns out for their greater condemnation later on. Would Wilson be willing to say that the blessing side equals the essence of the covenant, such that there is rapprochement between the “outer/inner” distinction so normative in Reformed circles, and the blessing/cursing paradigm that marks Wilson’s (and several other, though by no means all, FV’ers)?

I sincerely apologize to Gary Johnson for not finishing this review earlier. I got a bit side-tracked. For continuity, here is part 1 (covering chapters 1,2,5, and 6), here is part 2 (covering only chapter 3), and here is the book I am reviewing.

I intend to cover chapters 4 and 7 in this part of the review, giving Gary’s article its own post (as it is probably the most controversial).

Raymond Cannata (a PCA pastor in New Orleans as of the time of writing) gives us an account of the problem of why Warfield is so maligned, yet not read (pp. 96-97). I have found this to be true as well. People villify Warfield, and yet haven’t cracked open any of his books, except maybe the Plan of Salvation, for proof-texting (usually inaccurately). Cannata notes sadly that history has in large part vindicated Briggs in that most denominations have followed his lead in trashing Scripture (pg. 95). Cannata notes, however, that the modern challenge has altered a bit. The charge now, coming from folks like Grenz, is that evangelicals have (ab)used Warfield by making inspiration foundational to the Christian faith, and not just essential (pg. 96). It seems to me (and I think that Cannata would agree here) that most people think of Warfield as contributing to the denial of the humanity of Scripture. Cannata proves quite conclusively that Warfield held to the full humanity as well as the full divinity of Scripture (see pp. 98-104).

Noting briefly the key qualifications of the inspiration of the autographs, the importance of textual criticism (”Warfield began his academic career as a textual critic,” pg. 101), the non-dictation theory that Warfield held (the authors were guided by the Holy Spirit through sometimes supernatural and sometimes natural means, although the latter should never be understood as contradicting the divinity of Scripture), Cannata focuses the remainder of his discussion on the necessity of the Spirit’s illumination and the historical basis for Warfield’s understanding of Scripture (pp. 102-106). The former constitutes the point that no one can be convinced of the divine authority of Scripture without the Holy Spirit’s witness in our hearts that it is so. Again, this is evidence that Warfield was no rationalist. One cannot reason one’s way to convincing someone about Scripture without the Holy Spirit’s intervention.

The historical background focuses on the antecedents to Warfield’s view in the early church and in the time of the Reformation. Cannata is here addressing the issue of whether Warfield’s formulations were new or not. Of course, he comes to the conclusion that they are not, and backs this up with many references to primary and secondary sources (see the footnotes on pp. 104-106).

Stephen Nichols gives us (in chapter 7) an overview of the fundamentalist controversy as it affected Warfield and Machen.  He gives us a great encapsulation of the controversy in these words: “Charles Hodge faced merely the incipient birth pangs of what would come to be liberalism, B.B. Warfield battled its developing years, and Machen grappled with it as it quickly matured” (pg. 169). This entailed that most of Warfield’s theologizing would be polemical in nature (pg. 170). In comparing Warfield and Machen, Nichols notes that “Both in content and methodology, Warfield and Machen mirrored each other” (pg. 171).

Both were uncomfortable with many aspects of fundamentalism (such as dispensationalism and millinarianism), though standing with fundamentalists against liberalism in the matter of Scripture (pp. 172-174). One significant difference between Warfield and Machen was their respective stances on evolution, Warfield being much more favorable to the theory (although he certainly did not jettison the Genesis narratives as many did) than Machen was. Although Nichols mentions the fact that Machen was an expert witness at the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, Nichols does not draw the conclusion that Machen was influenced by that experience to reject evolutionary theories. I wonder about that connection, and wonder if that wasn’t the reason why Machen differed from his teacher on that score.

Nichols notes (without dissent) Riddlebarger’s assertion that Warfield and Machen differed from the fundamentalists primarily because of the latter’s Arminian and revivalistic tendencies. This is certainly the case. Riddlebarger points to Warfield’s reviews of other fundamentalist theologies in proof of this (see the Lion of Princeton, pp. 210,212, 213-241, quoted by Nichols).

What is especially important for me in this article is Nichol’s careful delineation of Warfield’s view on the interconnectedness of all the theological disciplines (pg. 181). Though Warfield viewed ST as the chief of the theological disciplines, he did not fail to stress the importance of all the others, and how they feed into ST. I will close with this tremendously important quotation:

While it is difficult for contemporary scholars to keep up with each of these fields, there is much to be gained by the mutual interchange between these disciplines, as marked by the work of Warfield and Machen, over and against the entrenchment one sees in the contemporary scene. (pg. 193).

Amen.

The second volume is available for purchase now. This covers chapters 10-22. The third volume is slated to appear in January, and will cover the remainder of Genesis. I highly recommend this commentary, as it is a collection of the best comments from the entire Reformed tradition up to Poole’s time (and includes many comments not from the Reformed tradition, I might add!). It is quite the labor of love.

This great book on justification and N.T. Wright is finally available. Important to know here is that Piper sent his manuscript to N.T. Wright, who gave him a detailed critique. In Piper’s own words, this greatly increased the size of the book, as well as the accuracy of it. Pick it up today at a great price.

By the way, I apologize to my blogger friends out there. I have had great difficulty today with the internet, and so I haven’t commented nearly as much as I would have liked.

This guy (in the video, not the blog!) isn’t necessarily a believer, but he sure has pegged our modern insipidity. Hilarious.

Bob Mattes has commented on the decision that the SJC made. I just wish to make a few points here. No longer can the FV guys keep continuing the mantra of “Wilkins was exonerated by his presbytery.” The SJC ruled that the Presbytery did so wrongfully. Further, this means that there will be further action taken against the Louisiana Presbytery in the April meeting for wrongfully exonerating Wilkins. I don’t quite know what this means for Wilkins per se. However, I don’t think he will be in the PCA much longer.