Posted by: reformedmusings | July 14, 2007

Great Posts on Imputation and Declarations

Dr. R. Scott Clark has posted a great new post: When Imputation isn’t Really Imputation and When “Reformed” Isn’t Really Reformed. Dr. Clark does a great job at rooting out another core error of the Federal Visionists. His reference to a pertinent Monty Python routine is right on target.

Green Baggins also linked to Dr. Clark’s post, and the comments there graphically show how far the Federal Visionists are from orthodox. The tone and content of some of those comments also confirm my decision not to allow comments here. Better never to start down that road than have to clean the litter box later.

The more I read the Federal Vision defenders’ comments on Green Baggins, both on the linked post and others, the more that I see that many of the defenders of Federal Vision don’t understand some of the basics of orthodox, confessional Reformed theology and don’t care to do so. The current “discussion” on imputation dramatically shows that. Some of their comments linked above at Green Baggins’ border on Roman Catholic theology. For example, one commenter wrote:

Clark maintains that justification can happen without union with Christ. Please, will someone in the URC will bring this man up on charges for his denial of the WCF’s doctrine? Let’s hear the URC come down on this question and condemn imputation by fiat or legal fiction once and for all.

First, Dr. Clark didn’t say that in any way, shape or form. Read his post for yourself. But “legal fiction”? That’s the language that the Council of Trent used to describe the Reformed doctrine of imputation.

Another interesting tidbit:

He knows he has no answer to Barlow’s haunting old question: HOW does God impute Christ’s righteousness to us?

That is indeed an old question from Trent. Have these people ever heard of grace–sola gratia? Federal Visionists seem perfectly willing to apply saving graces (justification, forgiveness of sins, adoption, sanctification) to the non-elect as part of their mythical “objective covenant”, but seemingly unwilling to apply saving graces to the elect in God’s eternal decree? What’s up with that?

On an intimately related topic, Green Baggins also posted his second installment analyzing Steve Wilkins response to the PCA’s Nine Declarations. More great stuff.



%d bloggers like this: