Posted by: reformedmusings | July 7, 2007

Initial Thoughts on Wilkins’ Answers

I just read through Steve Wilkins’ paper on the nine declarations linked in my previous post. Since Green Baggins is doing an excellent job of treating that document in detail, I will only make a few comments here based on work which I have already done here.

In regards to his answer to declaration #2 and #6, my post Misdirected Mail – Part 2 covers the “judgment of charity” issue. This judgment of charity exercised by the gospel writers and since those days preserves sola fide, sola gratia, and the unity of Scripture without the necessity of men in recent years creating new extra-Biblical and extra-Confessional categories for people.

My upcoming post on John 15 will deal with the Federal Vision myth of a “non-effectual union with Christ” which Wilkins defends in his answer to declaration #7.

I have already shown the error in his answer to #9 in my posts Hi Ho, Hi Ho and Final Judgment Again. Additionally, Dr. R. Scott Clark adds further thought to the subject in his post Judgment v Vindication.

A consistent underlying current that pervades Wilkins’ answers is the ongoing Federal Vision theme of redefining terms used in the Standards in key areas to support the non-Confessional concept of the “objective covenant” and a non-Confessional category of “covenentally elect” people. Compare especially his answer to declaration #2 with the short summary of the Federal Vision hermaneutic in Failure to Communicate and Good Hermaneutics on Green Baggins.

All the Federal Vision mens’ answers to the declarations so far display a clear, parallel theology to the Standards. Alternate definitions of terms and alternate extra-Confessional understandings of key Scriptural passages stand out in every set of Federal Vision answers so far. They caveat virtually every answer with that alternative theology. The myth that the orthodox Reformed community misunderstands Federal Vision sinks before these answers like a lead-cargo-carrying freighter broken in two on an iceberg. Blub, blub.



%d bloggers like this: