Luther famously said, “There is much divinity in pronouns.” John Barach’s essay “Covenant and Election” in The Federal Vision (Wilkins; Garner, eds.) may be an exception. Deep within the Reformed community the Federal Vision (FV) movement have been interpreting and re-interpreting Scripture and creedal expressions in the area of justification, faith, and works, in an effort to map out covenantal identity in the clearest and strongest terms possible. If the rest of the FV is anything like my initial introduction to Barach’s essay, however, I would worry. The cause for alarm is Barach’s use of ‘we’ ‘you’ ‘they’ and ‘them’ in his discussion of election and reprobation. If there is divinity in pronouns as Luther claimed, something’s missing.
One of the more irritating problems with Barach’s essay is that his pronouns stand for universals but do not represent anyone in particular. This is hard on the reader because pronouns such as ‘we’ constantly shift from including the reader’s acceptance of the truth of election from Scripture and the creeds (p.18) to the FV’s own unique statements and interpretation. Barach almost never lets the reader know where the FV’s differences between ‘classic Reformed’ theology are actually drawn which is not so much deceptive as it is irritating.
A more serious problem with Barach’s view of election is that his analysis of election is drawn from nebulous attitudes floating around closed circles and not specific analysis and concrete sources. A “popular” view of election without a specific source describes covenant inclusions as,
“You” will find all kinds of “various thinking” on election, says Barach, but he feels the previous statement is a fair and accurate description of what Calvin and the Three forms of Unity hold as the scriptural view of covenant and election.
Barach’s synthesis of Calvin and the creeds echoes another early reformed creed describing God’s dominion as,
This is similar to the FV interpretation of what election is, but I doubt the FV would readily identify with the Racovian Catechism. This description of God’s dominion paved the way for the Socinian’s to ascribe to the Father Absolutum Dominum: supreme dominion as God to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit. To support their claims, Fausto Socinus and John Crellius worked feverishly through Scripture interpreting key words such as ‘election’ and ‘beginning’ to refer to those who ascent to the truth of God’s law and the time of the Gospel.
So far, Barach and the FV do not deny God’s foreknowledge and election the way the Socinians did to emphasize freewill and inherent righteousness. So why argue in the same way? Stay tuned.
One of the more irritating problems with Barach’s essay is that his pronouns stand for universals but do not represent anyone in particular. This is hard on the reader because pronouns such as ‘we’ constantly shift from including the reader’s acceptance of the truth of election from Scripture and the creeds (p.18) to the FV’s own unique statements and interpretation. Barach almost never lets the reader know where the FV’s differences between ‘classic Reformed’ theology are actually drawn which is not so much deceptive as it is irritating.
A more serious problem with Barach’s view of election is that his analysis of election is drawn from nebulous attitudes floating around closed circles and not specific analysis and concrete sources. A “popular” view of election without a specific source describes covenant inclusions as,
“Only those whom God has predestined to eternal glory with Christ, are really in the covenant. Others may be in the sphere of the covenant. They may be in externally in the covenant or internally in the covenant. God makes no promises, then, to those who are not predestined to eternal salvation” (FV, p.20).
“You” will find all kinds of “various thinking” on election, says Barach, but he feels the previous statement is a fair and accurate description of what Calvin and the Three forms of Unity hold as the scriptural view of covenant and election.
Barach’s synthesis of Calvin and the creeds echoes another early reformed creed describing God’s dominion as,
“A right and supreme authority to determine whatever he may choose (and he cannot choose what is in its own nature evil and unjust) in respect to us and to all other things, and also in respect to those matters which no other authority can reach […] such as our thoughts […] for which he can at pleasure ordain laws, and appoint rewards and punishments” (RC, p. 25).
This is similar to the FV interpretation of what election is, but I doubt the FV would readily identify with the Racovian Catechism. This description of God’s dominion paved the way for the Socinian’s to ascribe to the Father Absolutum Dominum: supreme dominion as God to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit. To support their claims, Fausto Socinus and John Crellius worked feverishly through Scripture interpreting key words such as ‘election’ and ‘beginning’ to refer to those who ascent to the truth of God’s law and the time of the Gospel.
So far, Barach and the FV do not deny God’s foreknowledge and election the way the Socinians did to emphasize freewill and inherent righteousness. So why argue in the same way? Stay tuned.
0 comments:
Post a Comment