2004 Issue 1 - The Monroe Four Speak Out (With A Response) - Counsel of Chalcedon

The Monroe
Four Speak Out

(with a Response)
Two Interviews on the "Monroe" Doctrines espoused at
Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church Pastor's Conferences.
The Christian Renewal! magazine last year published
two interviews conducted by Gerry Wisz on the Auburn
Avenue Controversy. The first interview featured "The
Monroe Four." A follow-up response was given by
Robert Godfrey, president of Westminster Seminary in
California and a minister in the URC; Cornel Venema,
president at Mid-America Reformed Seminary and a
minister in the CRC; and two of the RPCUS presbyters
who offered the resolutions against the Monroe teachings
to their presbytery, Paul McDade, evangelist and pastor
of West Tennessee Reformed Mission and Henry
Johnson, pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church, Tazewell,
Virginia. (Dr. Godfrey's and Dr. Venema's consent to
this interview should not be understood to mean they
necessarily concur with the resolutions of the RPCUS
presbytery.) They are reprinted here as submitted to us by
Mr. Wisz with their permission.
First Interview:
The Monroe Four Speak Out
In Janl/ary 2002, follr ministers - John Barach of the URG,
Steve schlisselof Messiah's Congregation, Steve Wilkins of
the PC4, and DONg Wilson of Christ Church - delivered
severallecttlres at a pastor's conference in MOllroe, LOllisiana,
that precipitated the Reformed Pres1(yterian Chtlrch in the US.
(RPCUs) to level a declamation against the fotlr men and their
teachillgs, declaring them heretics alld calling them to repent.
Allother Monroe conference Ivas held ill Jantlary 2003, Ivhere the
follr ofigitlai speakers and other Reformed pastors, teachers and
theologians Ivere illvited to speak. The disagreements still stand
and there has flot been reconciliation bet/veen the RPCUs and
the Mot/roe four. IllStead, Reformed ministers and churchmen of
different churches have - to olle degree or allother- begull to
take sides Jvith either the RPCUs or with the fOllr ministers.
Christian Renewal cOlltributor Gerry WisZ SPetlt several hours
Jvith Pastors Barach,S chlisse4 Tf7ilkins and Wilson in a cOllferetlce
call, asking them to respolld to the RPCUs' declamations al1d
to clarify theirpositiolls. The fottr agreed and the follOJving is the
completed illterviem
34 the COUNSEL of CHALCEDON
Q: steveJyotl stlggest that LaJJJ and Gospel have been set tip as an
antithesis. Is this in yotlr view what maf!} Reformed chtlrches and
teachers do?
S. schlissel' Have Reformed folks gotten it wrong?
Yes, to the extent that they've followed Luther in an
imaginary Law/Gospel antithesis. I'm surely not the
only fellow to point that out. Cornelius Vander Wall
has written powerfully on this in his book The Covenal1tal
Gospel Have the Reformed gotten it right? Yes, by
affirming salvation by grace throughout history since the
Fall, and not just in the New Testament.
The Law as God gave it is the Gospel. "The Law of the
Lord is perfect, converting the soul," the Psalmist said.
And the Gospel as announced by Paul is the Law as it
had been conveyed by God and fulfilled in Messiah. Paul
said, "I am saying nothing beyond what Moses and the
Prophets said ... " (Acts 26:22). Paul's beef was not with
Moses, but with those who twisted him. The Law given
to Moses has the way of salvation; the Gospel given by
Paul has ethical requirements. And the requirements
continue to abide. The Gospel brings demands and law
brings promise. There's no easy compartmentalization.
People who suggest there is are distorting the Bible.
God did not give a ladder of merit in the Law; He gave
Himself, just as He did in the Gospel. Van der Waal said,
"The texts of the covenant always mention the Gospel
first: I (AM) Yahweh! He came with His obligations
for that reason alone." Paul sees the Law as in perfect
conformity with his Gospel (1 Tim. 1: 11). The Law is
good. Always has been. The Gospel has obligations.
Always has. Luther at points imagined a Law/Gospel
antipathy, but that antipathy was/is true only for those
seeking merit from Law. Ironically, that is something the
Law itself strictly forbids. Read it right and it's all one
Book, one message: the Law is permeated with grace,
the Gospel is permeated with God's good Law.
We must recognize that Luther's personal problem must
not become the paradigm for interpreting Scripture
wherein every verse or proposition is imagined to be Law
or Gospel. That is a perversion of the Word of God; it
is the source of many theological woes.
Q: Yotl sq)! in yotlr address, 'What mtlst I do to be saved?)) is the
wrong qtlestion. Im't this the qllestion the rich yotlng mler asked
Jestls, in his wq)!, as the Jews in Jemsalem 011 Pentecost asked Peter
and the Philippiall jailer asked Patt/, for which thry each received
ansJJJers?
S. schlissel' "What must I do to be saved?" is a fine
question - in context. I'm not opposed to the question.
Every unbelieving Philippian jailer guarding apostles
should ask it after an earthquake. But "What does the
The Monroe Four Speak Gilt (with a Response)
Lord require?" is better, more helpful, for many reasons.
Chiefly, it includes the former question, but changes the
orientation from self to the Savior, to God Almighty. The
world revolves around Him and His will, not around me
and my salvation. The right question puts us on the right
track, helping us be concerned less with our salvation than
God's glory. This is standard stuff from a Westminster
perspective. Man's chief end is not to "get saved," but to
glorify God.
Jesus' answer to the self-justifying expert mentioned in
Luke 10:25 was not to introduce a Lutheran distinction
between law and grace, or faith and works, but to illustrate
how even a Samaritan can be more righteous than an
Israelite, more righteous than a Levite or even a priest.
Jesus taught in Luke 10 exactly what His disciple Paul
taught in Romans 2: "Not the hearers of the Law are just
before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified,"
whether they be Jewish or Gentile. And the Law demands
faith in Jesus. Asking "What does the Lord require?" puts
us on the only right track.
If Jesus believed in Lutheranism, I
been the case since the Garden: one's own fig leaves (read
self-merit) vs. God's provision of blood (read grace).
Q: DOllg, do YOII believe the Lord's Supper is onlY for those of
years and ability to examine themselves, and if so, Ivhat does self
examination mean?
D. Wilson: We're not a strict paedocommunion church.
We would ask people not to bring a baby from the
hospital to the Table. But any baptized child can come
to the Table as long as the parents instruct him each
instance of the Supper, and the child is able to heed the
instruction. Heeding this instruction can occur on a very
immature level. In many churches, they've raised it to an
examination for ordination. These churches tell children,
"Grow big and strong and then we'll give you some food."
That turns the Supper on its head. In our church, we let
children as young as one or two years come to the Table,
when the child is tracking. "Billy," we'll say, "this is the
Lord's Supper, it's special." I spoke English to my children
before they knew it. It's the same thing.
respectfully submit that He missed a
grand opportunity to teach it in Luke
10. It is effrontery, an insult, to suggest
that Jesus' answer, "Do this and you will
live," was anything other than plain truth.
The problem of the expert was not that
he obeyed the Law. Such a notion is 180
degrees wrong. The expert's problem was
that he didn't obey the Law. Jesus' answer
to his question was not trickery, not an
In our church, we
let children as
Q: What's the difference between godlY self
examination and unhealff?y introspection?
D. Wilson: We should discern what the
Bible tells us to discern. That is not
primarily our sins, but rather the body.
The church congregation is that one loaf.
There is unity in the body and we ought
to discern any sins that would disrupt the
young as one or
two years come
to the Table.
effort to first make the man frustrated
by the Law so as to prepare him for the
Gospel. What nonsense. Rather it was Christ teaching
that obedience to the Law was something very do-able and
that such obedience, which includes repentance and faith,
does save. Such obedience is a turning away from self and
toward God.
Jesus' words and Paul's reiteration of those words have
been tortured by systematicians instead of believed. Why
is it so hard to simply hear those words and believe them?
Why are our Lord's own holy words an embarrassment
to some of His followers; why are these words treated as
words which must be explained away rather than trusted
and treasured?
In Luke 18 we have no hint of a faith vs. works
dichotomy, or Law vs. grace. Rather we have Jesus
pressing the Law as containing that which leads to eternal
life. What is required to inherit life is simply the opposite
of self-sufficiency, so often characteristic of the rich
(compare James' teaching here, or the prophets). This has
body. But that doesn't mean turning into
little cocoons that discern only our own
sins. That's not discerning the body or
what's going on in the Supper. We should
discern what's going on in the congregation and confess
sins that broke the unity of the congregation. We need
to be aware of our sins, but not be overwhelmed by them
because we're forgiven. God tells us to look away from
ourselves to Christ.
Let me add this: Say, there's a six-year-old who says, "I
love Jesus" and asks if she can take communion and
is refused by the elders because they say she doesn't
understand it deeply enough. She's discerning the unity of
the body and they are not; she should come to the Table
and they should disqualify themselves.
Q: Is introspection rampant at the Lord's Table? Haven't we
gotten better on this regardingjreqllen0', doing awqy with the
preparation services, etc.?
J Barach: A lot of this has been passed down to us from
the Puritans and their modern descendants, like Martin
Uoyd-Jones, who would preach as though there's always
a question whether the people of the church are really
the COUNSEL of CHALCEDON 35
The Monroe Four Speak Gut (with a Response)
God's people. He would preach through Ephesians 1, for
example, and ask, "Is this who you are?" "Are you really in
Christ?" "Do you have these glorious things Paul mentions
here?" And people would always question themselves,
wondering what they have to do to be able to say these
things belong to them.
S. Wilkins: There has been quite a lot of Banner of
Truth-type influence in the Southern Presbyterian
churches. The Reformed Baptists have had a sizable
influence on Presbyterians in the South and have played
a big part in the revival of Calvinism in the region during
the last part of the 20th century. One friend of mine, a
Presbyterian, commented to me recendy that we should
leave it to the children to decide when they are baptized.
That shows how baptistic many have become.
J Barach: Coming to the Table is often seen as a difficult
thing to do. The idea is that I'm in a dubious state, but
by examining myself, my feelings, I'll be able to convince
myself that I'm in a good state. But the New Testament
tells us we're in a good state unless we've been disqualified.
D. Wilson: In the TR ('truly' Reformed) world, the burden
of proof is on the sheep. They have to prove that they
really are sheep rather than the other way around - that
the sheep is really a wolf and is to be kept from the Table.
J Barach: I think a lot of Puritan teaching is really at fault
here. If you look at the Puritans, it seems everyone of
them wrote a massive book on assurance, posing assurance
as a rare jewel. There has to be wresding, doubt, and then
maybe there'll be assurance. They may have thought they
were getting this from watching their congregations, but
I think they preached in such a way as to produce it, and
then they tried to cure it.
S. Schlissel. Assurance-peddlers are like folks who've
stolen a man's car and then try to sell it back to him.
Much of their assurance problem is predicated on a
niggardly view of God. Lutheranized Calvinists share
with the worst Pharisees the perverted notion that God's
favor is gotten by something man offers to God. But
assurance-peddlers are worse than Pharisees because they
suggest that men offer "heart work" or internal works.
They often pay lip-service to faith, but they so qualify faith
- talking about its character, content, intensity, evidences,
and so forth - that by time they're through, confidence in
God has utterly eluded the simple believer.
The faith they talk about God requiring never seems to
be quite the faith that the hearers have. The congregants
are taught to question their faith, to doubt it, to examine
it literally to death. Thus assurance-peddlers out-do the
works of the Pharisees because they internalize works-
righteousness and fabricate a sort of faith-righteousness
wherein the character of their faith becomes the saving
agent instead of the Messiah. And all of this is predicated
on an idol-god who doesn't really want to save anybody.
Rather, their god loves to trick everybody. For them, he's a
god who's got covenant members in a maze like rats - he
stands over them, watching them, hoping they'll make a
wrong turn so he can squash them.
Q: Do you have a problem with the doctrine oj the visible and
invisible church, Doug?
D. Wilson: Augustine gave us the notion of a pilgrim
and eschatological church. That's what I was proposing
in my lecture. I was not trying to jettison the distinction
between the visible and invisible church, just showing that
there is more to it than that. I'm trying to emphasize the
importance of history and time in how we understand
the church, instead of thinking of it in Platonic categories
- one up there and another here, both of them static.
If you emphasize the elect and the invisible church only,
I'd have to ask, What do you mean? If I said there's a
heavenly Doug Wilson and an earthly Doug Wilson, which
one is real? We think of one over the other, the invisible
over against the visible, and then we end up disparaging
the visible church. That's the problem I was attacking.
Q: Jesus stem!J wams that if a ~ J J a n abide not in me he is cast
f0l1h as a branch and is Jvithered and men gather them and cast
them into the fire and h ~ are bumed" (John 15:6). You cite this
teaching in your lecture, Doug. Doesn't perseverance oj the saints
understand, in this example, that the reason there is no perseverance
is because there is no saintliness?
D. Wilson: Let me ask a question: Do we believe in
the perseverance of all the branches? No, right? I'm
not denying the doctrine of the perseverance of the
saints, justits usefulness as a shibboleth. We can just say,
"perseverance of the saints, perseverance of the saints"
like the folles in Jeremiah's day said, "the Temple of the
Lord, the Temple of the Lord," but God does things to
temples and to a lot of other things He gives us. The five
points of Calvinism have turned into a bonze serpent for
many of us.
J Barach: The word saints is the difficulty here, I think,
especially if we come to this with only the five points as
bumper sticker slogans. We take saints to mean the elect,
but that's not how it's used in Scripture.
D. Wilson: We baptize infants because they're covenantally
holy (1 Cor. 7). Unless we're prepared to say each infant
is elect, then we believe there will be saints who will fall
away. But I do believe in the perseverance of the elect of
God.
The Monroe FOllr Speak Ollt (1vith a Response)
Q: Let} sqy son/eone is ttnder discipline and has been
excolJltJlllnicated becaNse 0/ adultery. Is that person still in covellant
Jvith God?
D. Wilsoll: An adulterer is under obligation to make
restitution. If his wife divorces him, she's under no
obligation to him, but he is to her regardless of the result.
An excommunicated person has a covenantal obligation to
the church, not the other way around.
Q: I've always understood excommunication as being
tantamount to death. What's bound on earth is bound in
heaven.
D. Wilson: An excommunicated person is not in the
covenant, just as the one divorced is not married. But the
excommunicated can return and needn't be baptized again.
Until then he is treated as an unbeliever, an outsider.
Q: The Jews in wilderness - wasn't their problem
that they didn't combine being in the covenant and the
blessings of the covenant with faith, and so were lost even
though they were delivered from Egypt and God was their
God? Does this not bolster the argument for justification
by faith?
D. Wilson: They were delivered from Egypt but didn't
combine their deliverance with faith. So? The question
assumes we've denied justification by faith.
Q: I'm looking at your addresses on the one hand, and the
RPCUS statements on the other, so I'm trying to find the
place where the points of disagreement are.
D. Wilson: If you're asking if a man can be right with
God and go to heaven without faith, then we'd all say no.
S. Schlissel' Well, a baby can die and go to heaven
without having faith, that is, without having faith as the
Heidelberg defines it: "True faith [includes] a knowledge
and conviction that everything God reveals in His Word is
true ... " Such a definition would obviously preclude babies
from having true faith. Yet the Heidelberg fully recognizes
that babies of believers are in the covenant. And should
they die in infancy, the Canons of Dordt leave no room
for doubt that they are taken up in Christ to heaven.
D. Wilsoll: I'm prepared to say a baby can have faith.
But if the baby can't have faith then he can be right with
God apart from faith. But I believe if John the Baptist
can leap for joy in his mother's womb and if from the
lips of infants God has ordained praise - if they can
praise, rejoice - then they can trust. Trust doesn't have
to be mature trust. If it had to be mature faith we'd all
be in trouble. But if we allow for faith as a gift of God,
then we're saved by faith from first to last. That we deny
the necessity of faith is ludicrous. We all have a strong
doctrine of apostasy. What drives apostasy is unbelief, and
the engine that drives salvation is faith and only faith.
Q: But not 'Jaith o n l y ~ ?
D. Wilson: Not bare bones faith. Not assent. Devils have
that. True faith is more than assent. We are being accused
of denying sola fide because we deny solus assensus.
This is the rub, since we're all affirming this. Why are we
heretics because we say faith cannot be separated from
trust and obedience, and because we say saving faith
cannot be separated from a life of obedience and trust?
J Barach: That's how the Westminster Confession
describes what faith does: "yielding obedience to the
commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing
the promises of God for this life and that which is to
come" (14.2).
Q: So is this a lJJatter 0/ emphasis? Is the misllllderstalidillg Jvith
being saved, beingjttstijied 0' faith, that the accellt is olltside 0/
hUlJIan expeliellce, even to the point 0/ eXc/lidillg obedietlce?
J Barach: Part of the problem is that some people
use conditions to mean things you have to do to earn
something. We may want to use it in a different sense.
D. Wilsoll: If God turned me into an apple tree, I must
bear apples. That's a "condition" of having to bear apples.
But it's not the ground of anything. I didn't turn into an
apple tree by bearing apples, but if He turns me into an
apple tree I will bear apples.
J Barach: We would say that faith is a condition of
justification. But we're not talking about faith as
something that earns justification. Rather, it's the
necessary instrument by which we're justified.
S. Schlissel' Morecraft and his followers don't really
disagree with us when it comes down to it. I suggest that
he only disagrees with us theoretically. For example, Joe
would never tell presumptuous people from his pulpit
that they can be comfortable in their presumption. He's
a better Christian and covenant keeper in the pulpit than
he is when he theoretically opposes the points some of us
made in Monroe.
We find support in the Westminster for the positions
we've taken, but the Morecraftians have gone to tertiary
standards. They are not appealing just to the Bible, nor are
they relying upon the actual Reformed standards. Rather,
they are depending upon slogans for their position. For
example, they speak of "faith plus nothing." But faith in
that slogan is elusive and conveniendy undefined. If we
insist that saving faith is an obedient faith, are we adding
something? Of course not. But the Morecraftians have
Ule COUNSEL of CHALCEDON 37
The Monroe Four Speak Out (with a Response)
gone past the Bible, and past the standards, to slogans.
And suddenly, if you don't agree with their undefined
slogans, you're an apostate.
I maintain that the Morecraftians don't even believe their
own verbiage. If an unrepentant homosexual says he
made a decision to follow Christ, if he claims he believes
in Jesus and claims he is therefore justified, Joe Morecraft
would tell that homosexual to his face that he was
deceiving himself. I have known Joe for nearly 20 years,
and I can assure you that Joe would never permit such
a person to deceive himself without a challenge. But if
Joe challenges that man's so-called faith, is Joe therefore
teaching faith plus obedience? Yet that's exactly what he
claims we are teaching. I trust you can see how very silly
this is.
Q: Has Confessionalism replaced an active) livingfaith in Riformed
churches? If so what is the solution?
D. Wilson: Yes, in many cases it has. In many other cases,
non-Confessionalism has replaced an active, living faith.
In all cases, the problem is sin - not the Confessions.
When we make idols, we often do so out of innocent
materials. The solution is to preach the Word like the
house was burning down, sing the psalms like we believed
them, learn how to incorporate wine and chocolate into
the sabbath, come to the sacraments in humble reliance on
the Holy Spirit, and pray for a tsunami reformation.
We are in line with the Torah (the Law) and the Talmud
(the interpretation) of the Westminster Confession, but we
have run afoul of the Midrash (oral tradition) of American
Presbyterianism on what these phrases mean.
Q: So) thereijustification and ensuant to that is sanctification) a
one-two step) whereas Jor you iti all 0/ a piece?
D. Wilson: Justification to them is something that happens
and has to be tied up with a bow, and then we can move
on to sanctification. But when God gives faith, that faith
doesn't immediately croak. It is a saving faith, and that
same faith is the lone instrument for sanctification also.
One can't be apprehended without the other. They are
distinct but not separable. You can't make an ontological
distinction. It is an organic whole for us.
Q: Doug) when you cite "continuing in goodness" in Rom. 11 in
your 2002 lecture) is that the cause 0/ our salvation or the fruit 0/
it?
D. Wilson: Yes (laughter all around).
Look, in Colossians Paul says as you received Christ so
walle in him. So the way we become Christians is the
way we stay Christians is the way we finish as Christians
- by faith from first to last. So we continue in God's
goodness by trust. We stand by faith - they fell, but you
stand - doing that to the end is how you come to your
salvation. It's the gift of God lest anyone boast. I believe
we are saved by faith from first to last, which is why I have
been accused of denying sola fide. Wisdom is vindicated
by her children.
Q: Steve in your address you sqy that the Puritans
and Presqyterians believe that baptism brings a child merelY into
ecclesiastical covenant. What else does it do?
S. Wilkins: Modern Presbyterian theology has made
a distinction between external membership and real
membership in the covenant. Obviously, by baptism we
become members of the church, but to be a member of
the church is to be a member of the body of Christ and
biblically speaking, that means that the baptized are united
to Christ.
Q: Can we be in the church but not united to Christ?
S. Wilkins: That's a distinction the Bible doesn't make.
I see what they're trying to preserve, but the distinction
is not biblical. The visible, historic church is the body
of Christ and thus, to be joined to it by baptism is to be
united to Christ. By baptism God offers and gives Christ
to us. But this good gift must be received by faith or
our baptismal union with Christ will bring judgment not
salvation. None of this undermines the sovereignty of
God since faith is a gift from God and how we respond to
His gifts is ultimately determined by His comprehensive
decree.
Q: The Reformed tradition does have its but it seems you
have your own macros going on. You qualtJj quite a bit in your
addresses) but there are places lvhere you don't. Iti those places lvhere
people seem to have problems.
S. Wilkins: I tried to qualify what I meant every time.
D. Wilson: This controversy didn't start with anyone
seeking qualifications. We offered qualifications where we
thought there would be difficulties, but the other side just
came out swinging.
Q: Is there a difference between being baptized in union
with Christ and knowing and enjoying that union?
S. Wilkins: One is objectively true and the other is the
fruit of a faithful embracing of that union.
Q: But yotl don 'I' want to talk much abotlt that - at least not at
the conference. W!zy? Pastoral theological reasons?
The Monroe Four Speak Out (lvith a Response)
S. Wilkins: No, that's not true at all. What's delivered
over to you by baptism must be embraced by faith. I've
said that thousands of times at the conferences.
D. Wilson: Our opponents have not put together our
lectures on salvation by faith and our lectures on apostasy.
The latter are about how someone can be in the covenant
and not have faith. That's the grand qualification, and it
was not heard. They see that as a denial of perseverance
of the saints rather than as a qualification of the sola fide
talks. Put them together and they're fully orthodox.
J Barach: It seems that when many people read passages
about baptism in Scripture, they take them to be referring
not to something that involves water, but to something
they call "Spirit baptism." But when the Bible says that
we are buried with Christ through baptism (Rom. 6:
4), it is speaking about water baptism. The Westminster
Confession uses 1 Cor. 12:13 as a proof text for water
baptism as an entrance into the visible church (28.1). The
Westminster Larger Catechism (Q: 161) asks how the
sacraments become effectual means of salvation - not
whether they are, but how they are.
Some people are not getting it yet. But they will. If you're
Reformed, you can't be Baptist.
J Barach: When we qualify, it is not what they want
to hear because what they want to hear are baptistic
qualifications.
Q: Steve, at one point in your 2002 lecture,you stry baptism
unites us to Christ and His church and thus gives us new life. You
do qualijj at quite a few points, but in context 0/ this there is no
qualification in your address. For good or ill, we're used to speaking
itt Westminster Larger Question 161 terms every time we utter. To
some, I can understand that this sounds like the two - baptism and
new life - are alwtrys co-extensive.
S. Wilkins: Rom. 6 says that we've been baptized into
Christ and His death, burial and resurrection and raised to
newness of life. That's objectively true of everyone who
receives baptism. This doesn't mean that they are saved
no matter how they live or respond to the grace of God.
Indeed, Paul warns them about the possibility of being cut
off because of arrogance and unbelief in Rom. 11.
D. Wilson: If I said this at a TR meeting,
I'd have to dodge dead cats and ripe
vegetables.
People will begin to
understand the dif-
Q: Is new life in this context baptismal
regeneration?
S. Wilkins: Every time we referred to
baptism in the conference, we would deny
that baptism brings automatic or infallible
salvation. Faith is required of all who are
joined to Christ in covenant. But we must
not separate the work of the Spirit from
the visible elements of the sacrament.
ference, except may-
be those among the
Reformed who are
really Baptists in
disguise.
S. Wilkins: If we mean by regeneration
a gift of new life that will never die out
but produces persevering faith, then no,
I don't believe that is necessarily given at
baptism. But I don't believe that is how
the Bible uses the term regeneration.
Take Tit. 3:5. It says God saves us
Our Confessions make plain that a
sacrament includes both the sign and the thing signified.
Without both there is no sacrament. Thus, though we
may distinguish between the work of the Spirit and the
application of water in baptism, we must not separate the
two. When we do so we become baptistic.
S. Schlissel: People will begin to understand the difference,
except maybe those among the Reformed who are really
Baptists in disguise. And there are many such. That's
why Westminster Seminary has an institute on the church
led by so-called Reformed Baptists, an oxymoron if ever
there was one. Calvin and Calvinism thoroughly repudiate
those who repudiate 99% of the baptisms performed in
the world. Yet that is exacdy what Reformed Baptists do.
Somehow, though, these Baptists have their own institute
on the church within Westminster Seminary, while at the
same time a truly Reformed Westminster subscriber such
as Norman Shepherd can't even be mentioned there. But
the Baptists are accepted. There is a sorting out going on.
according to His mercy by means of the
washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy
Ghost. The word washing plainly refers to baptism.
Paul says that this washing is something that results in
regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit. It seems
plain to me that Paul was not operating with our definition
of regeneration. It seems to me that our theological
definition is too narrow at this point. So, rather than
trying to force this text into the mold of our theological
definition, we should be willing to expand our theological
definition so that we can embrace what Paul is saying here.
D. Wilson: On qualifications, the problem is not context.
We supplied plenty of context. In the dicta heroica of
Luther - you know, what he said about Law or James
- if taken in isolation it could be construed as heretical
or heterodox. People go for broad context for Luther
because they have good will toward him. People miss the
context of what we're saying because good will is missing.
They don't want to find out we're not heretics. If good
will were there, it would be a lot easier to make Luther
sound like Zane Hodges than to make Schlissel sound
like the Pope. We don't do this to Luther because we're
Protestants. We like him. We'd be happy to debate our
opponents, but I object to the absence of good will that is
causing all this.
They're tied to a kind of ritualism. You know how
Ambrose Bierce defined ritualism in The Devil's
Dictionary? ''A Dutch garden where God walks in
rectilinear freedom, keeping off the grass." We've created
grooves in our Confessions where God may walk, and
where His Spirit may move, but now He has decided to
move somewhere else. He is walking on our grass.
J. Barach: On this issue of baptism and new life, someone
baptized now has a new family, a new set of relationships,
new responsibilities, new privileges that the unbaptized
do not have. The baptized have a new history. They can
now say, "My father was a wandering Aramean."
S. TPilkills: It's like a wedding. There is a transformation
that takes place because of the ritual. A single man
becomes a married man. He is transformed into a new
man, with new blessings and privileges and responsibilities
he didn't have before. A similar thing happens at
baptism. The one who is baptized is transferred from
the kingdom of darlmess into the kingdom of light, from
Adam into Christ, and given new privileges, blessings, and
responsibilities he didn't have before.
J. Barach: That's why we can say to each person, "Sin
has no dominion over you anymore" (Rom. 6:14). You
are now under Christ's Lordship. You've been brought
into a new relationship. Start submitting to him and stop
submitting to the devil.
Q: Is baptism ill Ch,ist ahvqys water baptism?
S. Schlissel. The Bible says there's one Lord, one faith, one
baptism. What's the one baptism? Are there one or two?
It's always by water unless there are two. The Bible says
there is one.
Q: Can yotl be baptized fry lvater al1d 110t baptized fry the Spitit?
S. Wilkins: I would say no. We may distinguish the work
of the Spirit from baptism, but we should never separate
the two.
S. Schlissel. Baptism in the Spirit with accompanying signs,
even the office of Apostle, belong to the foundational
period of the church.
We have been writing privately and on the net. People
are asking, "Which camp will lead to Rome?" I answer
The Morecraftian approach does more good for the
papal position. A young guy in the Morecraft orbit just
became a Roman Catholic. It's very clear why he did it.
If he followed the Monroe speakers, the Monrovians, he
wouldn't be a Roman Catholic.
I have a letter from a guy who read an article by me on
Andrew Sandlin's site (www.christianculture.com).This
fellow went to Westminster. When he later continued
studying, he came upon an antenicene text indicating that
the antenicene fathers believed in baptismal regeneration.
Because he had been told that such a view was Roman
Catholic, he became one. We are confusing things that are
biblical with Romanism.
This same fellow told me that when he made inquiry
concerning doctrine from priests, the priests, "talked
with me and prayed with me. When I went to
Reformed pastors, they recommended a book." That's a
generalization, I lmow, but it's a mouthful and it's a good
warning. We Reformed are sometimes too comfortable
intellectualizing. The Christian life according to Jesus
is a life that can be seen. It's to be seen in love. But we
Reformed are all too quick to shoot our brothers first and
ask questions later. So, when impressionable kids see this,
they throw up tlleir hands and go to Rome. By hating
each other we do Rome's work for them. We've got to
stop this. Not every disagreement has to be punctuated
with a heresy charge.
J. Barach: A telling thing is how Larry Ball, someone in
the TR camp, has responded. On the B. B. Warfield
mailing list, he said, "It appeared to me, in the discussion
at least, that the only ones opening their Bibles were the
Monroe Four. The respondents typically responded by
such simple statements as 'we need to read this in the
context of the Confessional Standards' or, 'this must
be read in the context of other passages.' Seldom was
another text presented. Textual exegesis was obviously not
a highlight of the Conference, and being generous, this
was probably because of the limited time." He said the
Monroe Four opened their Bibles. Their opponents didn't.
S. Wilkit/s: This is in part about psychology. The RPCUS
drew a line in the sand declaring our teaching to be heresy.
Consequently, they cannot afford to hear anything that
would show that what we are saying is not heresy. Thus, if
we affirm the orthodox position on issues, we're accused
of duplicity. Since they have refused to discuss this with
us, we're left without any recourse.
J. Barach: I was not contacted by anyone in the RPCUS,
except to receive the Call to Repentance, i.e., the document
the RPCUS produced.
S. Wilkins: Henry Johnson (RPCUS minister) called me.
But he never gave me any indication that he was calling
in some official capacity. He expressed his concern over
what I had said in 2002 and we talked about it. I requested
The Monroe Pow' Speak Out (lvith a RespollSe)
him to continue to be willing to talk and consider these
things and he agreed. At no time did he indicate that
the RPCUS was planning to bring charges against me or
anyone else. He called Schlissel a few days later. When we
said that no one contacted us about the charges ahead of
time, the RPCUS said that Henry's conversation with me
and with Steve Schlissel constituted such a contact.
S. Schlissel. It was almost a deliberate misleading.
S. IVilkins: Everyone of us contacted them in one way
or another and said we'd be willing to meet and talk, but
we received no response from them.
Q: It seellls you oo/eet to certain distinctions and see them as
sloganeering: Law/ o s p e ~ visible/ il1visible chllrch, baptism ~
water/ il1 the Spirit.
S. Schlissel: We had not shared our lectures with each
other before speaking at Monroe, but each of us definitely
takes a more organic view of Scripture than our scholastic
friends. Our opponents are comfortable with baptistic
categories. They accuse us of hyper-objectivism or hyper-
covenantalism. I don't think these labels are helpful or
accurate. Each Monrovian wants to hear the Bible as
if it is saying what it means, objectively and truly. Our
opponents want an experience subsequent to baptism that
would make baptism legitimate after the fact, a coordinate
experience or decision. The early reformers would view
that as unbiblical.
J Barach: Some tend to see the Law as all the moral
commands in Scripture and the Gospel as all the promises.
But when Paul sets up a distinction between Law and
Gospel, he's often setting it up as history, as a reference to
the Torah and the New Covenant.
S. Schlissel. The Didache - the oldest existing, non-
inspired Christian document - begins by describing
the "way of truth," i.e., the Gospel, as loving God with
all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Think about
it. The earliest post-biblical writing we have begins
with an identification of Law and Gospel. When I said
this in Ancaster, some people went nuts. They said,
"Deuteronomy 6 is Law, not Gospel," as if God's Word
could be opposed to God's Word. They said, "The
teaching of Deuteronomy 6, to love God, is as far from
the Gospel as you can get." Not according to the Bible
it isn't, and not according to the earliest, post-apostolical
Christian writing in our possession.
Q: Is it possible that the problem doesn't lqy with the distinctiom
themselves - I In riferring to the distinctiol1s in liD' earlier question
- but Jvhat Ive do with them as Reformed chNrchllletl?
S. Schlissei.' Plato and his buddies reflected not just a way
of thinking, but a class of people who could afford to be
spectatorial in life and in their particular understanding of
what knowledge was. You could call them super white-
collar, or privileged as opposed to blue collar people who
had to work for a living. We created a class of people,
especially by the time the 16th and 17th centuries rolled
around - the class of the professional theologian. These
theologues thought you had to read the Bible as if it was
a crib sheet for speculative questions, lofty, second order
questions rather than real life stuff. The truth is not really
down here, they thought, not in the nitty-gritty, where
there's gas and dirt and fear and blood.
This was a true child of gnosticism and it haunts us to
this day, it really does. For these gnostics, truth is up there
in the realm of ideas. Such a view was well-suited for
professional theologians. They speculated for a living,
like a presbytery meeting or Congress. They get together
and then need to do something, so they invent problems.
What they should do is dismiss themselves. The whole
idea of professional theologians leading us to truth is
sacerdotal to the core. The Bible is only on occasion
written to pastoral people; mainly it is written to the
man on the street. We have interposed a class of people
between the two.
S. Wilkins: Whenever you focus on subjective experience
as the basis of assurance of salvation, you are ultimately
undermining assurance. You ask questions that cannot
be answered with any certainty. Have you truly believed?
Are you really converted? The decree of election is no
ground since no one can know if they have been chosen
for salvation.
Men must have something objective and certain. But if
you refuse to look to your baptism then all you are left
with is experience. That's why people write the date of
their conversion in their Bibles, walk forward in meetings,
ask Jesus into their hearts over and over again: they need
rituals, something objective, so they invent them in these
ways. If you ignore the sacraments and refuse to embrace
them as both signs and seals of God's grace this sort of
thing is inevitable.
Q: John,yoN sqy itt YONr address that a lllilJister should be able
to sqy, 'Jesus died foryoN personallY" and meaf! it to all if! his
cOf!gregatiof! - head for head. How do YON square this Ivith Esatl
- a covef!allt Illelllber- as he} descn'bed ill Rom, 9?
J Barach: My point was to stress the language of Scripture
to the church. In 2 Thess, 2 Paul says, "We ought always
to give thanks for you, brothers beloved by the Lord,"
People who read Scripture primarily as the ore from which
we mine our systematic theology may be inclined to smelt
that passage down and develop an abstract theology of
election and maybe preach a sermon about election and
about why Arminians are wrong. But the Bible is not
primarily a sourcebook of theology. It's a covenantal
book, a liturgical book, a book to be addressed to the
church.
The point is that Paul isn't merely speaking about the elect;
he's speaking to the congregation. And we should follow
his example. We should say to the church, "Brothers, God
chose you for salvation." Do I know that each will end up
in glory? I don't know that. But I know that they're in
covenant with God and that God speaks
this way to them in His Word. We should learn from Paul
how to address the church.
Q: People would agree but sqyyou plura4 not you singular- head
for head. Thl!Y wouldn't isolate and sqy, "Christ died for you, John
Smith, in the second row on the right, J} would thl!Y?
S. Wilkins: I know few Reformed ministers who would be
comfortable saying what Paul said without qualifications.
Paul said, you are all baptized into Christ and members of
Christ's body, each of you - no qualification. He doesn't
say if you sincerely repent of your sins and sincerely
believe in Christ, then you're a member of the body. This
shows us how we think about the Bible, how we read it
and how we hear it. When Paul talks to baptized people,
he's objective. He doesn't qualify and doesn't leave a
question mark over their heads: "This is what's true of
you, live in the light of this reality." We don't hear that
kind of preaching anymore.
J. Barach: When a pastor is counseling someone in the
church, where there's confession of sin, where there's
wrestling, can't he say, "Jesus died for you"? Would he
only say, ''Jesus died for the elect, and if you're one, you
can get helped"? In Ezek. 33 God says a righteous man,
an individual, will live. So the Lord declared, ''You will
live," but he died anyway. Did God mislead him? No. He
spoke to Him in a way that was faithful and trustworthy,
even though the man didn't respond to God's promise
in faith and ended up dying. I want to be able to address
people the way Scripture does.
S. Wilkins: We don't have to know the decrees to state
these covenantal, objective realities very plainly and
without qualification. Our theology, focusing as it does
upon the decrees of God, has made us fearful of saying
something that might eventually be contradicted by God's
decrees. Thus, we don't want to say, "Christ died for you"
in case God actually didn't ordain the death of Christ to
apply to that particular individual. Paul wasn't hampered
in this way. He recognized God's purposes stand forever;
nothing will counteract His intention and plan. That
was a comfort and assurance, but he didn't allow that
to undermine the objective realities of being united to
Christ in the covenant. That's what we do too often and
consequendy we render the covenant meaningless.
Response!
Against the Tradition
Riformed churchmen see the Monroe Four as blurring distinctions,
confusing the flock, and sounding an uncertain trumpet.
The teachings at the Monroe, LA, Pastors Conference on
the nature of justification, sola fide, the relation of Law
and Gospel, invisible and visible church, the sacraments
and other issues have spurred the Reformed community to
address these teachings. In one case, that of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (RPCUS), resolutions
were passed and a charge of heresy issued along with a call
to repentance against Pastors Barach, Schlissel, Wilkins,
and Wilson and sent to the courts of the churches where
these men minister.
Earlier, Christian Renewal ran an extensive interview with
the four Monroe teachers conducted by Gerry Wisz.
Gerry has asked four others to respond to that interview
and also to the Monroe teachings that are available on
tape. Participants are Robert Godfrey, president of
Westminster Seminary in California and a minister in
the URC; Cornel Venema, president at Mid-America
Reformed Seminary and a minister in the CRC; and two
of the RPCUS presbyters who offered the resolutions
against the Monroe teachings to their presbytery, Paul
McDade, evangelist and pastor of West Tennessee
Reformed Mission and Henry Johnson, pastor of Trinity
Presbyterian Church, Tazewell, Virginia. (Dr. Venema's
consent to this interview should not be understood to
mean they necessarily concur with the resolutions of the
RPCUS presbytery.)
Q: The men at the s t o r ~ cotiference in Monroe, LA, have
challenged much of traditional Reformed thinking along several
lines, like the visible and invisible church, covenant and election
and perseverance of the saints. How do you view these teachings
generallY?
C Venema: Let's start with the distinction between the
visible and invisible church, as this relates to the doctrine
of election. In these challenges, there is often a blurring
of distinctions and a failure to appreciate a long history
of reflection on the Scriptures and interaction with the
whole Word of God in relation to the church and the
doctrine of election. In Rom. 9, not all those persons
in the church are children of promise in the strict sense
of God's purpose of election. That creates problems
regarding how we understand the covenant of grace in its
administration, but it demands that a distinction be made.
The Monroe Four Speak Gut (with a Response)
In the material I read, especially in Barach's handling of
covenant and election, he wants to identify covenant and
election corporately, so that all with whom God covenants,
head for head, are presumably elect. And he doesn't want
to even add the word presumablY.
Q: Isn't the notion rf presumablY elect there for church members in
the Reformed faith?
C Venema: Yes, but these men use different adverbs, like
"really," "objectively," "truly communicated" - that's not
language of presumption. Presumption is not the same as
saying all those with whom God covenants are elect and
regenerated in Christ - the whole visible church. This is
where distinctions - contrary to anti-systematic theology
talk - are unavoidable. If you say all are elect but some
apostatize and are not saved, you have losable election and
losable regeneration.
Q: Is this, you think, where these men s issue or preoccupation with
assurance is comingfrom?
C Venema: It's ironic. Barach says all the
the impression that the covenant is a good arrangement.
God does something for us, now it falls to us to do
something for God. If we meet our end of the bargain,
then we'll be proven elect. The solution offered for
alleged problems in traditional ways of thinking is worse
than the disease. It aggravates a problem the Reformed
tradition recognized, but which was resolved in the form
of a Confessional consensus. The Reformed tradition
recognized the complexity of this issue, which is why they
made distinctions like that between the visible and invisible
church, the covenant in its administration and in its
essence. We should remember the wisdom of Augustine's
adage - "he who distinguishes well thinks well." I think
the Reformed tradition thought carefully and well about
this question.
R Go4frry: the Confession is intended not to answer every
conceivable question, but to establish commonly agreed
upon parameters within which reflection on these issues
can go on. So among Confessionally Reformed Christians
there are differences on how we view the covenant, how
we understand election in light of the covenant, and some
of these discussions can be profitable and
Puritans wrote large tomes on assurance.
I'd be interested to know which Puritans
and which large tomes. They seem to want
to answer a problem about how people can
be sure of their salvation in Christ. We
have to look to the promise, to the Word,
to the means God has appointed. So far
so good. On the other hand, they're more
than presumptive. They want to speak
definitively of the election, regeneration,
If you say all are
elect but some
healthy for the church. But when you go
beyond the parameters of the Confession
as these men seem to do, then you get
into a difficult situation. It's difficult for
me to distinguish their position from an
Augustinian Roman Catholicism. And
indeed, setting aside free will, which
apostatize and are
not saved, you have
losable election and
losable regenera-
tion.
they would deny, their view is not
distinguishable from Arminianism. It's
ironic where they have ended up.
and salvation of each person with whom
God covenants in the administration of
the covenant of grace. However, down the road, and
ultimately at the Final Judgment, it's only the persons
in that company who persevered in obedience who are
judged by God as acceptable to Him. On the one hand
they want to solve the problem of assurance. But in the
end, they only aggravate the problem. They leave in doubt
the answer to such questions as - Will I persevere? Is
my covenant faithfulness adequate? Have I done all that's
necessary?
Q So the teaching has the opposite iflect rf what it seems to want to
accomplish,focusingpreoccupation on se!! instead rf Christ?
C Venema: The mediator of the covenant, Jesus
Christ, who accomplishes for his own all that's needed
- justifying, sanctifying, preserving, securing the
inheritance of the covenant - He virtually vanishes.
My basic question is: what's become of the covenant
mediator? Who is He? What has He done? What has He
secured? How adequate is His work? You are left with
C Venema: By way of an unnuanced
emphasis upon corporate election and the conditionality
of the covenant - and reading election through covenant
- you end up with conditional election. That is, those
who meet the conditions of the covenant are ultimately
elect. One good thing about their position is that they
don't actually believe everyone, believers and their seed,
head for head, will ultimately prove to be elect. They'll
allow for the notion of covenant breaking. But because
they want to identify covenant with election, not just in
terms of the way we view or regard people but what's
"truly," "objectively" the case, they paint themselves into
a corner theologically. As Bob put it, you end up with a
modified Augustinian Roman Catholic view or a kind of
new version of the old Arminian position.
Q: Thry don't seem to see it that wqy.
R Go4frry: I think there's an unintentional sidelining of
Jesus by these men. I think you see an interesting parallel
to their emphases and thought in late 17
th
century English
Presbyterianism that replaced Christ with the covenant and
The Monroe Four Speak Ollt (lvith a Response)
ended up as Unitarians. I'm not saying this is where these
men are or where they'll end up, but there is a trajectory
in their thought that's alarming. And it raises a question:
what is it that continues to be important about Jesus?
Norman Shepherd seems clear about denying the act of
obedience of Christ regarding justification. The function
of Jesus is to take away our sins, but the positive acquiring
of righteousness that will stand in the Last Judgment is
up to us aided by the grace of God. I think that's a far
cry from our Reformed Confessional doctrines. It's very
dangerous.
P. McDade: The Monroe Four, following the Norman
Shepherd construction, hold a modified Roman Catholic
view of justification. It's modified, but maintains its
foundation in human works. It's amazing, then, that
they call us assurance peddlers. Here they are saying that
baptism provides an objective basis for assurance. But
it's assurance only if you persevere. So the definition
of assurance changes. Biblical assurance not only is the
perception that you are in the estate of grace, but it is the
assurance that you will persevere in that estate - what our
Larger Catechism calls "infallible" in Question 80. On the
basis of the Monroe teaching, there is no assurance at all.
R Godfrry: The issue of assurance in 17
th
century
thought is complicated, and there were theologians who
took a subjective approach to assurance. I'd be someone
who would be rather critical of much of that Reformed
reflection. But the Reformed answer as we find it in
Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism is that the objective
foundation of our assurance is to be found in Christ
and His promises. The Catechism rightly points us to
the fact that assurance in Christ is inherent in faith. It's
not something that has to be added to faith, as some
Reformed theologians later tried to argue. Calvin and the
Catechism are right on that point. Baptism functions as
an encouragement to assurance, as an objective expression
of the promise. But baptism functions only in its relation
to Christ and His promises. Christ is oddly absent, I don't
think by intention on Wilkins' part, but oddly absent from
his answer about baptism in your interview. It's not really
baptism but the promise of Christ of which baptism is a
testimony tllat encourages us in believing.
c. Vellema: A question I have is: with this heavy
emphasis, this primary role of baptism in relation to
assurance - and there's a measure of truth to that if it
were properly presented - the precise relation of the
sacrament to the Gospel promise in Christ seems leveled.
The Heidelberg Catechism says the word of the Gospel
produces faith through tlle Word and confirms faith by
means of the sacrament. It's a significant testimony given
by God, but its effect as a sacrament requires the response
of faith. The strong statement about the efficacy of
the sacrament doesn't get located in its proper context
in terms of tlle way the Gospel is preached, ministered
and made effective by the working of the Spirit and the
Word. It's only in that way that the sacraments function as
means of grace. Otherwise, you have a view that the mere
administration of the sacrament does it.
R Gorifrry: It's interesting that at this point they are
formally like Martin Luther, who said he knew he was a
Christian because of his baptism. Interesting how often
they attack Luther and then say the same thing formally
that he said. What Luther meant by that is that when
he was assailed by doubts that God could love someone
who continued to be such a sinner as he, he would look
his baptism as a visible expression of the promise of
the Gospel. That visible expression supported and
encouraged his faith. In that regard, Luther said what
the Reformed would want to say about the continuing
function of the sacraments in the Christian life to confirm
and encourage faith in the promises of the Gospel.
Q: It see!lls these !lien are trying to collapse traditiollal Confessional
categories. Their concern seems to be that IJJe 've gotten stuck in them
instead Jvhereas thry simplY Ivant to assullle them in ministry. If
this is tme, is it a sociological church problem? Could the problem be
Jvhat Jve're doing Ivith categories rather than the categories themselves?
H. Johnson: I believe that the problem that these men
are addressing is a real problem. The addresses of the
Monroe men in ilie 2002 pastor's conference contained
much reference to their alarm at ilie sad state of ilie
church in our day and the culture at large. We do
indeed see a culture that has a lot of chaos, the effects
of rebellion against KingJesus and His Word the Bible.
The Monroe men have attacked ilie Reformation, ilie
Puritans, and Souiliern Presbyterians and said we are the
problem. But I believe the problem is iliat ilie Gospel
according to Scripture has not been proclaimed, embraced
and practiced. The problem is not with the Reformation,
ilie Puritans or the Souiliern Presbyterians. The decline
of the church and our culture has paralleled the denial
of what Calvin, Knox and our Confession has taught.
The Monroe men are redefining this Gospel. The
Reformation hammered out many crucial truths of the
Gospel from the Word of God. One of ilie accusations
of the Monroe men is that they are dealing with Scripture
without making distinctions, while we men who hold to
ilie Reformation, the Puritans and the Confession, are
caught in our systematics and are making harmful and
unbiblical distinctions. We are going to find ourselves in
big trouble if we don't make the distinctions the Bible
makes. For example, in 1 John 2:19 a distinction is made
between the members of the visible church which the
Monroe men refuse to acknowledge.
The MOl/roe Fot/r Speak Gt/t (il/ith a Response)
Because of their professed love for Christ and alarm at the
state of the church and culture of today, these men have
put forth their new definition of the Gospel. Yet because
they have identified the wrong source of the problem, they
are creating an even greater problem. When I first heard
these tapes and saw the effect they were having; confusing
church members throughout the country as well as elders,
I called Steve Wilkins in May 2002. I was concerned and
alarmed at what they were teaching. One of the main
topics we discussed was the distinction between the visible
and invisible church. We talked about 1 John 2:19. I asked
him, in terms of this new paradigm, what do you do with
that verse? I was shocked to hear him say that he hadn't
considered that verse with reference to this issue. I also
asked him why his conference dealing with the so called
problem of assurance didn't even mention the book of
1 John. The Bible teaches that we ought to interpret
Scripture with Scripture. It is interesting to note that these
men have only arrived at their position by reinterpreting
the passages they appeal to in a unique, novel way and in
isolation from the rest of Scripture.
C. Venema: A lot of what they're presenting seems
to be coming from an analysis of what's wrong with
Presbyterianism. It's baptistic, has a regenerational
theology and so forth, so the solution is to think
covenantally and not distinguish between visible and
invisible church. And there's a huge problem about
uncertainty of salvation and a generally non-covenantal
approach to things. It may be that in their context
they're facing off with some baptistic corruption of the
Reformed faith. That's a sociological kind of analysis. It
doesn't square with my own experience. You don't find
among us - I'm speaking in my own context - that people
are overly exercised or all but beside themselves for fear
that they're not saved. Neither is there a non-covenantal
approach to things. I'm at home in it; it's where I live. It's
the context in which I was raised.
R Gorifrl!J: It's interesting that of the four only Wilkins is
a Presbyterian. Wilson is a kind of congregationalist as is
Schlissel and Barach is Dutch Reformed. It's ironic that
they make this sociological observation but for three out
of the four, it's not the context in which, it seems to me,
they have operated. Maybe they think that's the broader
character of a lot of American Reformed evangelical
thought.
C. Venema: At the risk of being accused of traditionalism,
Reformed churches are, if they are anything, Confessional
in nature. That means that we enthusiastically subscribe
to the Confessions as a good, sound setting forth of the
whole teaching of the Word of God. They are rooted
in exegesis. They are borne out of centuries of seeking
to understand the Scriptures. So when you use language
like, "We need a new paradigm" or "The traditional
Confessional formulae are no longer adequate," and you
do that as office bearers in Reformed churches, I have
a very serious problem. I think you're obligated to do
something differently before you go public with your novel
views and new paradigm. You need to identify where in
the Confessions things are inadequately stated, unbiblically
presented, needing to be adjusted or changed or altered
in some way and carry that forward in terms of the kinds
of processes that the Reformed churches have historically
recognized; otherwise you have precisely what this kind of
thing produces.
Q: That} if YON agree il/lth YOHl'vieJv of ConjessiollaiistJI.
C. VetleIJJa: That's the only view I've known to be
Reformed. There are mainline churches that treat
the Confessions, as the World Alliance of Reformed
Churches calls them, as a common ethos but not
something requiring strict subscription. That's not my
understanding. These men are in context - well, they
are in congregational settings as Bob pointed out - but
Wilkins and Barach have an instrument called a form of
subscription, and it doesn't just say I'll work somehow
loosely within the parameters of the Confession. It says
I basically find these Confessions to be fully in agreement
with the Word of God. They are things to which I am
committed wholeheartedly, happily so, and I will preach,
teach and speak in a way that is in full support and in
agreement with these things.
The visible/invisible church distinction is not explicitly set
forth in the Three Forms of Unity as in the Westminster
Confession, so I would acknowledge that as a Three
Forms of Unity person there's more room perhaps to play
with that distinction than for a Westminster Reformed
person. However, there is a lot of unnecessary pitting
of the Westminster standards against the continental
standards. You will not find the authors of the continental
standards nor those who stand in the tradition of the
continental standards in any way rejecting a distinction like
the visible and invisible church, and any of these other
points that are perhaps more explicitly set forth in the
Westminster Confession. What I find so discouraging in
the materials I've read on this is that it appears to exhibit
little interaction with or appreciation for responsible
engagement with the tradition Confessionally arid
theologically known as Reformed. Many of the positions
that are being played with prove to not be at all novel;
they're new formulations of older views that have been
rejected.
P. McDade: I can't find anything, in my experience over
the last 20 years in the Reformed Presbyterian churches
that would match the way we've been characterized by
these men.
The Monroe FOllr Speak Ollt (ivith a Response)
Q: IVhat abottt Steve S chlisse/} teaching, "the Law is the Gospel
and the Gospel is the Lau;"?
C. Venema: One of the most obvious definitions of Law
is what God requires of us. We could conceivably use
the term law to refer comprehensively to the whole old
covenant administration under Moses; Calvin does that
sometimes. But let's stay with the first definition, which
is the most common and ordinary one. That Law is not
Gospel. It does not give to us what it obliges from us. It
can only kill. Paul says so in Rom. 7. It makes known our
transgression: Rom. 3: 4-5, 7.
Q: Either that or it} the "life" in the phrase 'Jaith and life,"
tight? In that case it doesn't kill I'm thinking that} what Steve is
refining to.
C. Venema: Steve expresses himself in a way that, to me,
seems confusing. The Law in one of its most common
usages, and that's how Reformed theology uses it when
distinguishing it from Gospel, is what God obliges us to
do. "Do this and you will live": Lev. 16:15 and Deut. 27.
We are all of us, because of the Law's obligation, placed
in an untenable position, namely, we're guilty, there's no
one righteous, no not one. We're all under condemnation
that brings death: Rom. 5. The Law cannot save - it has
no resource, no capacity, no power. That's the uniform
consensus of the Reformed tradition.
R GocifrVJ: That's what Ursinus says in his commentary
on the Heidelberg Catechism.
C. T/enelJ1a: Every Reformed theologian of any
consequence has written and understood this two-fold
form of the Word of God - Law and Gospel. This is
ABC Calvinism. If Steve wants to disagree with that,
fine, but don't call it Lutheranism that he's rejecting. He's
rejecting consensus historic Calvinism. The Gospel is
good news of what God does for his people and grants
them freely in Christ. He not only fulfills the Law, He
suffers its curse. He even by his Spirit renews us in the
way of obedience. It's grace from first to last. Not grace
and then we come in. It's all Christ, it's all on account of
Christ - justification, sanctification, both benefits.
What I'm getting at is that that kind of a statement - the
Law is the Gospel- is not just silly, it's seriously in error
and its profoundly contradictory to the consensus of
Confessional Reformed thinking. I want to give Steve the
benefit of doubt, so I'll say he's confused and needs to do
a little more reading in the Scriptures and studying of the
Confessions, and think a little longer and harder before he
speaks in this way.
R GocifrVJ: Reformed people need to hear that what they
are hearing from him is not Reformed theology. And I
think it's important that periodicals like Christian Renewal
not give too much space and credit to what he's saying
as though he's a reliable Reformed voice. There's a
journalistic responsibility to say that this is a voice not in
conformity with our Confessional standards.
Q: Steve} not been writing alticles for Cbtistian ReneJval
C. Venema: It seems that they print, however, every long
letter that he writes. And that material is not always well
informed.
Q: We did want both sides on this, Jvhich is JVf?y IJJe asked you to
participate.
R GodfrVJ: That's why I'm taking the time to do it. At
some point, however, the reading public of Ch,istian
ReneJJJalhas a right to know that Christian ReneJJJalis not
going to act like The Banner, as if there are two absolute
legitimate sides to these kinds of questions.
H. Johnson: I initially called Steve Wilkins because as
a friend and brother in Christ, I was concerned for
him and the sheep he was influencing. I knew nothing
of this discipline situation that was in Paul McDade's
congregation when I first called Steve. I told him the
reason I called was that I was concerned for the sheep that
were being confused and mislead by this new paradigm. I
told Steve Schlissel the same thing when I called him two
days after our resolutions were passed June 22, 2002. As
I said earlier, I have known three of these men for years
and their professed love for Christ. And it has broken
my heart to see them preaching a Gospel different from
the Gospel that they used to proclaim and the Gospel
that I believe Scripture teaches, what has historically been
defined as the Gospel. Justification by faith alone in Christ
alone is crucial as has already been stated. My only hope is
that I've been saved by grace through faith alone in Christ
alone. The imputed righteousness of Christ is what I
depend on for my standing with God. I affirm that works
are an inseparable fruit of true saving faith. But they want
to deny that works are merely a fruit that expresses the
thankfulness - as the Heidelberg Catechism describes it
- to God for this incredible work of salvation in Christ.
These men are not satisfied with these Confessional
expressions of good works being fruits of saving faith, but
not the ground or instrument of justification.
R GocifrVJ: There's no quicker path to undermine the
assurance of believers than to say we will only stand in the
last judgment by achieving a certain level of obedience.
Who is ever going to know if they have attained that level
of obedience? If the Heidelberg is correct, and I think
it is, that in this life even the holiest of men have only
small beginnings of the obedience to which we're called,
then how will we ever know if we will ever stand in the
The Monroe FOllr Speak Ottt (!vith a Response)
judgment? It's a very spiritually undermining approach to
theology.
Q: HOIv are JI!e to tltlderstand biblicalfy h07V J}!Oties and jllstificatiotl
0' grace through faith interact? Do Jve believe the Monroe teachings
are COllt/ter to the biblical teachings?
P. McDade: There is no interaction in the sense that works
are read backwards to inform justification. Justification,
like adoption, is an act of God. It's judicial in nature. And
the resulting good works are the fruits of justifying faith
as a work of God in us. We call it sanctification. Romans
is pretty clear. Paul begins by saying the gentiles are under
the judgment of God for sin. Then Rom. 2 is devoted
to saying the Jews are under the judgment of God for
sin. And my construction on this is clear from Rom. 3:9,
where the apostle summarizes what he has demonstrated
up to that point by saying, "We have before proved both
Jews and gentiles, that they are all under sin." But the Jews
do have an advantage, the oracles of God. The point of
Paul's argument in Rom. 3:19 is the first use of the Law,
just as Calvin discussed it. Paul is quoting from the Law
and the prophets in verses 10-19 to the effect that there is
none righteous. This is one of the points of contention.
Schlissel rejects three uses of the Law calling them "illegal
and unbiblical." That goes hand in hand with man's works
being justifying. But the apostle is specifically denying this.
In Rom. 3:20 he summarizes, "By the deeds of the Law
there shall no flesh be justified ... " This is because by the
Law is the lmowledge of sin. That refers particularly to
the Jews - "we" from vs. 9.
So right here, it's clearly an illegitimate claim by the
Monroe men that justification by faith has to do with
non-ritual conversion to the hope of Judaism, as though
justification by faith has to do only with gentiles coming
into the church. That's clearly illegitimate. Paul is
beginning with gentiles, then looks at the Jews in the Old
Testament and is claiming justification by faith for both
- what he calls all flesh.
In Rom. 3:27-29, we are again told that justification is
without the deeds of the Law; and it applies to both Jews
and gentiles. In Rom. 3:30 the 1599 Geneva Bible uses
the pronouns tzland through - and its construction helps
clarify a startling text. God justifies the circumcision
of faith. This is a reference to the true circumcision,
a spiritual work, which Paul in another place calls
"circumcision made without hands."
Paul is following his Jew/gentile motif. The first half of
vs. 30 is not a statement of how he'll justify, but whom.
A remnant of the Jews. The gentiles, the uncircumcision,
will be justified through faith, as the Gospel goes out to the
world.
Having hammered out justification, in Rom. 3:31, Paul
turns right around and says faith that alone justifies also
establishes the Law. This is Calvin's third use of the Law.
This theme is taken up again in Rom. 6. First, though,
Paul emphasizes it's been this way all along in Rom. 4.
Then, because justification is an act of God, we have
peace with God through the Lord Jesus: Rom. 5. The
believer doesn't have an assurance crisis because of the
nature of justification. He has peace with God. That's
an imputed reality just like Adam's sin. We didn't first sin
to become accounted as sinners. Adam sinned and we're
counted in him judicially because he's our covenant head.
The Monroe men talk about covenant, but they're denying
true covenant theology. They refuse to have a covenantal
head whose righteousness is counted. And we're speaking
of Christ!
Q: Is Jvhat thry're sqying that Ive're 110t jltstified ry faith? Aren't
thry sqying thry oo/ect to the forensic nat lire of justification, but also
that Ive're not saved 0J JVOlieS alolle, although that we arejttstified
has to do with 0111' IVoties or our obedietlce.
P. McDade: Schlissel speaks of being made right with
God and staying right with God. Then he rejects the uses
of the Law. He says the very idea of a first, second, and
third use of the Law is illegal and unbiblical. He insisted
that Christ in Luke 10 was teaching the Jewish lawyer that
obedience to the Law was something very doable. The
essence of that is the Roman Catholic construction at
Trent. In Roman Catholicism, justification is by faith, like
it is for Steve Schlissel and the Monroe men.
C. Venema: According to Trent, justification begins with
faith but needs to be finished by works.
P. McDade: God gives the faith and repentance, and then
faith and repentance in the man produce good works
that are justifying - that's the view. They can make these
affirmations in their statements - and I've listened very
carefully to the statements. Every statement they've made,
every affirmation, supposedly of Reformed doctrine, can
be constructed in terms of Trent.
Q: Do you think thry actualfy believe there is a callsalrelationship
there - between faith and jt/stiping Ivorks - the same as the Roman
Catholics do, or is it that thry're mttddled?
P. McDade: I can't agree with the idea of their being
muddled, because they are removing from the traditional
Reformed view into this new paradigm. We can go into
their teaching and see specifically what their statements
are. I think they lmow clearly what they're doing. It's just
that they're not telling us. They're playing a cat and mouse
game with theological constructions.
The MOllroe Fotlr Speak Ollt (lvith a Response)
R Godjrry: We're seeing with them what we saw some
years ago with Norman Shepherd. On the one hand
they want to say that they're thoroughly Reformed on the
doctrine of justification, but on the other hand they're
saying the doctrine has to be recast. It seems to me that
for almost 500 years our best theologians have given
careful attention to justification by faith and works and
their mutual interrelationships. If there's one doctrine
that has been carefully and thoroughly investigated by
the Reformed it's that one. If you look at Westminster
Larger Catechism questions 70 to 77, you'll find a splendid
Confessional summary of what the Reformed have
thought on these matters. If these Monroe men or others
come along and say, "but we need to say this better," then
you're saying it differently and they're deviating from the
Reformed Confessional consensus. At the best you can
say they're being unclear, but I think it's worse than that
and it's dangerous for the Reformed community at that'
point.
P. McDade: According to Trent, "if anyone teaches the
justice received is not preserved and also increased before
God through good works, but that the said works are
merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but
not a cause of the increase thereof, let him be anathama."
That's what we're talking about in their construction.
In your interview Wilson says, "justification to them is
something that happens. It has to be tied up in a bow ... "
So Wilson is saying justification will happen over time.
That is the essence of Rome's process theology.
Q: In 1 COl: 1 Christ is everythillg--lighteollmess, sanctification,
perseverance - bllt Pall! doem't jllst sqy everything, he parses
it Ollt.
C. Venema: I'm still at a point - though I'm not sure
about Schlissel since he seems reluctant to grant sole
fide when asked - but I'm willing to grant that these
fellows are just muddled and confused in their desire to
recast the doctrine. We have in our Confessions a very
clear statement on faith and works, justification and
sanctification. It's not hard if you read the Heidelberg
Catechism Lords' Days 23 and 24 to get a very clear and
firm grip on how this understanding of Scripture works.
With the writings and addresses of the Monroe fellows
this to me is as big a problem as any - things are
unclear. Why is it so difficult to say that faith is the only
instrument that apprehends and receives everything we
need in Christ whereby to be justified - to have right
standing in respect to God? And that the same faith that
apprehends Christ alone for justification is by the Spirit's
working by the word a faith productive of good works so
that the same Christ who is our righteousness also washes
us and renews us by His Spirit by sanctification? But if
you confuse justification and sanctification then everything
is muddled.
Q: Are these men '!),percoveflalltal?
C. Venema: Classical Reformed theology is covenantal.
And the Westminster Confession says the two benefits of
our covenant mediator - this is the covenant - is that
we are simultaneously justified by grace alone through
faith alone and renewed by the working of Christ's
Spirit through the word. Why do we not read or hear in
the addresses or pronouncements that kind of simple
catechetical answer? Why muddle something that isn't
muddled? We have a very clear statement, carefully
wrought out. What needs to be improved? What's wrong
with what we have? Where is there an advance?
P. McDade: They muddle it to change it.
C. Venema: That's the question. On the one hand they
want to say, no, we don't want to change anything. Then,
simultaneously, no, we need to fix something. Which is it?
P. McDade: Here's a quote from Schlissel. Listen to what
he does here: "If you are only saved by faith apart from
any activity or any response to God's word then well
what kind of faith is that .... ?" '"
Q: Well, hOlv can a/1)
'
one be saved ry faith Ivithollt a response to
Ivord?
P. McDade: Obviously faith produces a response. But
in this quote, he substitutes "saved" for "justified" and
then he argues against the "alone" clause. It's trickery on
their part. That's the point. If men are not clear in their
thinking, they're willing to follow them in their foolishness
here, and they can't discern between the concepts of being
justified by faith alone and Schlissel's "only saved by faith."
And any number of their statements includes this kind
of trickery. They'll say, we believe in salvation by faith
alone. But you notice they don't say justification, they say
salvation. And the point is to muddy the waters, so they
sound orthodox to the undiscerning and at the same time
they can actually teach a Roman Catholic construction or ,
some modified construction akin to Roman Catholicism.
Q: Catl IJJe till'll to the baptism qllestion? Doestl't the Cotifessiotl
speak of baptism signifying tlnion IVlth Chnst?
P. McDade: They speak of baptism uniting us to Christ.
In our construction, in the Westminster, and it's similar
in the continental view; you're united to Christ by faith.
the Confession says that unity with Christ is by the Spirit
and faith. When they say it's by baptism, we're moving
over into baptismal regeneration, and can talk about the
Spirit and faith somehow being involved in baptismal
regeneration. But in the Reformed faith, union with Christ
means being saved, and that is not the case in their system.
The MOllroe Fottr Speak Ottt (lvith a Response)
Union with Christ is only by the Spirit and faith. Baptism
may signify it, but it's not in the rite. Union with Christ
in the Reformed faith is the same as salvation. All that's
involved with salvation flows from union with Christ.
You're united to Christ and you're justified, regenerated,
sanctified. To separate that - to say you are united to
Christ and not saved - is not Reformed.
H. Johnson: As I stated earlier, one of their arguments
is that we're not dealing with Scripture. But Scripture is
a whole. The Scriptures themselves make distinctions.
Another example is John 15, where Christ talks about the
vine and branches, the branches in the vine getting cut
off. They want to interpret this passage in light of dleir
system. These branches, they say, had full union with
Christ. But John Murray comments on union with Christ.
I wish we had space to quote the whole chapter entided
"Union with Christ," in the book, Redemption Accomplished
and Applied. A perversion of the Scripture's teaching on
union with Christ is a major source of the confusion and
error of the Monroe men. Murray's excellent summary of
this doctrine in that chapter shows how God uses all kinds
of similitudes to describe that union. "On
3, etc. in light of their system, this new paradigm. This is
a redefinition of the Gospel.
P. McDade: And it's only John 15 where they get their
idea of union. All their authority is from that sin1ilitude
even though they can say, we don't know what the "sap" is.
They're doing exacdy what Murray warns against.
Q: So, Murrqy is sqying don't go to metaphoric or parabolic
teachings alld tttm them illto point flrpoint analogies to constmct
theology?
H. Johnson: As Murray says, "analogy does not mean
identity." There is similarity but not identity. These men
have taken John 15 and press it beyond what John 15 itself
and the rest of Scripture interprets this union to mean. It
doesn't mean that every branch is in full union with Christ,
and that's what these men have stated, that the branches
are all the same, and some persevere and some don't.
Justification with that definition becomes a process, not a
forensic act.
P. McDade:
the highest level of being it is compared to
the union which exists between the persons
of the trinity in the Godhead ... Oohn
14:23; 17:21-23). Itis compared to the
relation of the vine to the branches Oohn
15). Hence we have analogy drawn from
the various strata of being, ascending from
the inanimate realm to the very life of the
persons of the Godhead.
That's the question.
And according to the Monroe men, union
is accomplished at baptism, and it's
whole union, and it must include then
regeneration and all of the gifts, and so
their concept has you Arrninianized at
On the one hand they
want to say, no, we don't
want to change anything.
this point. Once you're baptized you're in
some kind of Arrninian works program.
Justification is progressive and is going to
Then, simultaneously,
no, we need to fix
something. Which is it?
take your works and life into view. And
it's tenuous. If you fall away or apostatize,
you'll be cut out like the branches from
the vine. But in John 15, all Jesus is doing
is emphasizing to his disciples that they
must abide in Him. The elect will heed
This should teach us a great principle. It
is obvious that we must not reduce the
nature and the mode of union with Christ to the measure
of the kind of union that exists between the chief corner
stone and the other stones in the building, nor to the
measure of the kind of union that exists between the vine
and the branches, nor to that of the head and the other
members of the body, nor even to that of husband and
wife. The mode, nature, and kind of union differ in the
different cases. There is similitude but not identity ...
Similitude here again does not mean identity. Union with
Christ does not mean that we are incorporated into the
life of the Godhead. That is one of the distortions to
which this great truth has been subjected. But the process
of thought by which such a view has been adopted
neglects one of the simplest principles, which must always
guide our thinking, namely, that analogy does not mean
identity. When we make a comparison we do not make an
equation ... "
The Monroe men have taken John 15 and have
reinterpreted this and other texts Rom. 6, Titus 3, 1 Peter
that warning and do it. That doesn't mean everyone in
the visible church is united to Christ and has all that's
necessary if they're baptized.
Q: I cotlld see how thf!Y go to that passage to sqy,yotl have om
vine and branches come from otle vim. Is it out of place to sqy
ecclesiologicalfy flot everyone itl Israelis of Israel? Onfy wqy to
knolv is at the efld when the branch gets cttt off and bllrned becatlse
there} 110 fmit.
C. Vellema: You're speaking from within the old
paradigm. What the brothers are saying is that in this
new paradigm being in the vine is everything. It's the
fullness of salvation, all the benefits that come to us with
fellowship with Christ. That's the only way they can take,
so they say, the language of Scripture seriously. Alright,
grant that, here's a person who has everything, fully united
to Christ. That person apostatizes, breaks covenant. Then
all is lost. The formulation raises problems from the
standpoint of a Confessional view. What Christ is talking
about there is not the fullness of the union. The old
The Monroe FOllr Speak Gut (lvith a Respollse)
paradigm distinguished the covenant in its administration
from the covenant in its essence.
H. Johllson: Our desire is to see the church declare the
Gospel according to Scripture. That was our motivation
in writing the resolutions. It's very sad to me that these
men have been attacking Pastor Morecraft with ad hominem
arguments, public derision and adolescent cartoons. He
didn't author or present to our presbytery the Call to
Repentance. Paul, Jeff Black, and I did. I told Wilkins
and Schlissel if I ever preach in a way that confuses people
on justification, I pray that they'd love me biblically and
call me to repent and address my church court to correct
my erroneous teaching. It's difficult; it's not fun, but it's
what God calls us to do.
C. Venema: I find all this badmouthing of systems and
thinking things through and drawing connections to
be silly. You don't escape it with a new paradigm, you
just connect the dots differendy. You come up with a
new system because you don't like the old one. And
Schlissel talking about Hellenization by way of systematic
formulations - I find that to have more to do with our
intellectual environment today - postmodernism. People
are very happy to hold opposing views - A and B - that
don't fit together, but it has nothing to do with being
Greek. This old complaint about "Greek versus Hebraic"
thinking is borne out of poor liberal German scholarship
that's been discredited again and again.
These things are not opposed. They're different
approaches, they're complimentary. Confessions are by
their nature a summary statement. They draw things
together. They don't repeat every text. They try to state
what the whole Word of God teaches about something.
It's a Catch 22 situation with them, because if you criticize
their system and use coherent systematic, Confessional
categories, then you're already ruled out of the discussion.
I'm amazed to hear that kind of thing being said. It's silly
and more reflective of our intellectual environment than
anything else.
R Godfrg: It's part and parcel of a tendency we've seen
for about 50 years and can see it already in the work of
Herman Ridderboss - a kind of biblical theology that
claims to go beyond traditional Reformed systematic
categories. Especially as it's being practiced in America,
it's a kind of arrogant systematic theology that doesn't
understand the Reformed systematic enterprise that has
been about for hundreds of years.
One of the most profound things I heard in seminary
was a professor saying the Bible is a big book. And the
function of systematic theology is to take the product of
exegesis and biblical theology from parts of Scripture and
see how the pieces fit together. At first glance it appears
that Roman Catholics have their verses and Arminians
have theirs and Jehovah's Witnesses theirs. If we believe
the Bible is a coherent whole, how do the pieces fit
together? When a key verse comes up, and someone says I
never thought about that, well then you shouldn't be doing
systematic theology for the church if you haven't thought
about it. Though not perfect, Reformed theology has
done a great job of taking these pieces and fitting them
together. And far from being driven by a rationalistic
Greek impulse, it's been driven by an impulse to pull all
the pieces of the Bible together.
P. McDade: To organize theology under the covenant is
an approach of systematics. So out of one side of their
mouth they're saying let's reject the systematic approach,
and out of other side another systematic approach is being
constructed. More seriously, there's a rejection of the idea
of truth. They say we can't debate their paradigm based
on decretive theology. It's a different paradigm, and so our
categories don't fit. Well, are the categories true or not?
If we can't understand dleir system in terms of truth then
what can be said about it?
R Godfrg: Their relation to the Confessions is a rather
baptistic one. They feel free to choose among them.
There's not a sound ecclesiological recognition of the
witness of the church in its Confessions.
C. Venema: It is baptistic. I find it interesting to observe
that they don't speak historically and individually from
any kind of rootedness, a strong sense of tradition in the
best sense of the term. A historian has said, "Tradition is
the living faith of the dead, and traditionalism is the dead
faith of the living." But I think Reformed Christianity has
a very strong sense of the catholicity of the church and
a longstanding consensus in the Confessions regarding
what the Word of God teaches. It really falls to those
who would deviate or depart or come with novel points of
view to responsibly make their case and in a responsible
way. This may be a belated comment, but I don't believe
these individuals have earned the right to be given too
much credence. I think it's far beyond anything given
their contribution that they should determine the points
of discussion let alone where Reformed theology and
thinking should go in the 21
st
century. They are making
some inroads and creating enough confusion.
Q: Henry, )vhen Steve Wilkins said he had not considered 1 John
2:19, Ivas that the conversation lvhere YOII were gathering information
to lise to Mite the resolutiolls and charges of here!)l?
H. Johnson: My intent in calling Steve Wilkins was never
to "gather information to use" in writing anything. I
did not have any hidden motive or intent when I called
Steve. I told him upfront that I was calling to make sure
I understood him correcdy, that in light of correcdy
understanding him, I was calling to plead with him to
repent of teaching things contrary to the Gospel according
The Monroe Four Speak Ollt (llJith a Response)
to Scripture and to repent of circumventing the courts of
the church in assaying his "new light." I was also calling,
I told him, to let him know that his public declaration
of this "new Gospel" demanded a public response, and
stated to him that I did not know at that time what or
when this public response would be. But yes, this is the
conversation I referred to earlier, that took place in May
of 2002. I shared that conversation with our presbytery
when we had a pastoral matter that had come up. I called
Steve Wilkins and told him I was calling because he was a
friend and a brother. I wanted him to tell me that he really
didn't believe what he had said publicly, but as we talked it
became apparent to me that I had not misunderstood what
he was saying. That was the context in which we talked
about the distinctions of visible and invisible church.
I also called him to repent. And I did because I loved him
in the Lord Jesus and he had circumvented the courts of
the church, instead of coming to the church and saying,
you are wrong in your teachings, this is what the Scriptures
teach, and our standards need to be changed to reflect this
new light that we have to better understand the Word of
God. I asked him to publicly retract the
necessary to bring repentance and reconciliation. The
Monroe conference teaching is the teaching of public
heresy, and the entire church has been publicly scandalized
by these men. If you look at Scripture, then it's not Matt.
18, but Gal. 2 that needs to be followed. Merely by
example Peter gave place to the Judaizers, and everyone
witnessed what he did. Paul doesn't go to Peter privately.
He arraigned him publicly for his error. The circle of
involvement included all those who had been scandalized,
and that was our course. Calvin said of Gal. 2 that those
who sin publicly must be publicly chastised so far as
concerns the church so their sin doesn't form a dangerous
example, especially if the station they hold is influential.
These men have misrepresented what we've done in the
resolutions. They said it was like accusing someone's wife
of adultery in a public assembly when it was still private.
They painted it as though we had the power to try them,
and judged them without a hearing or testimony. But
if you think about the public nature of their heterodox
teachings, their complaints are nonsense. We called on the
courts of their churches to address it. That's all we could
do.
new paradigm until he and the other men
at least look at passages of Scripture like 1
John 2:19 that he hadn't considered yet in
light of his new system.
They painted it as
Q: Given hOlIJ YOII proceeded, regarding Gal. 2
and Calvin C01JJ/JJeflt, did these melt relation
One of Wilson's addresses at Monroe in
2002 was about dealing with heresy. He
said, "the faithful individuals who address
it (heresy) should address it as churchmen.
They should address it as members of
the church rather than addressing it as
though we had the
power to try them, and
judged them withou a
hearing or testimony ...
We called on the courts
to address it. That's all
to the Reformed chllrch commllllion infltleflce hOJIJ
you IlJent jonlJard?
P. McDade: There's one universal church
of Christ. You can't restrict its visible
manifestation to one entity. Our concern
for truth is concern for this one body
we could do.
individuals who have a personal problem
with what this guy is teaching." I mentioned this to Wilkins
because these men were publicly declaring a new Gospel.
They were teaching a justification not in accord with the
Confessions, and the doctrines of grace were under attack
by implication, baptism and many other doctrines were
being redefined by their new teaching. I asked him to say
publicly that they needed to go back and do some work, and
to go back to their church courts. I find it ironic that these
men have accused us of trying and convicting them when we
sought their church courts to look at these teachings. They
are out of accord with the historic Reformed Confessional
faith and they are the ones acting as individuals without
regard for the courts of the church.
Q: Andyoll believe them to be erroneolls and heretical?
H. Johnson: Yes.
p. McDade: They began by crying about Matt. 18.
But that text has to do with private offenses between
individuals. The circle of involvement widens only as it's
of Christ. We have a duty regardless of
where the heresy is taught. You'd do that
anywhere in a pulpit. You'd say this teaching is out there
and growing and remonstrate against it.
One thing that has been poorly publicized is the reason
our presbytery acted. This began as a pastoral issue within
the congregation of the mission work I pastor. Steve
Wilkins sent conference tapes to a young man who is a
member in this work. That young man shared them with
another young man who was a seminary student. They
and two others living with them were influenced by these
men, began to oppose my teaching, and eventually left
the church. When all's said and done I have others, as
well, who were offended through the controversy this
teaching stirred up. Eight months later the seminary
student announced his conversion to Roman Catholicism.
The teaching that took him to Rome was the teaching of
Norman Shepherd and the Monroe men.
Q: Steve Wilkins has said the Spirit operating throtlgh baptism
and baptiStll are tJlJO different things) bllt IlJe shouldn't separate them.
Do agree or disagree?
The Monroe Four Speak Ollt (lJJith a Response)
C. Venellla: If you were to give him the benefit of the
doubt, you'd say he wants to underscore the importance
and effect of baptism by Christ's appointment in
communicating God's grace. Again, you have a case where
it would help to make some distinctions. Historically, the
sign and the thing signified have always been distinguished.
It has never been asserted by Reformed thinkers that
the actual agent of regeneration - the Holy Spirit - is
so joined with the instrument - baptism - that in every
instance we should conclude that they coincide.
Q: Even prestltlJPtivefy?
Well, possibly you can speak that way. But why speak
presumptively? I use language W(e it is our expectation,
our every good confidence in terms of how we regard
people, but I would never say that they coincide or
that the one does what the other does, or that in every
instance where someone is baptized with water that truly,
objectively, really effects regeneration or salvation. In the
Westminster Confession chapter 28, sec. 6 it's carefully
stated that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the
moment it's administered. The Holy Spirit confers to such
that the grace belongs to in His appointed time. We can
view and regard people who've been baptized as those to
whom God has spoken, but not draw the conclusion that
head for head all such are saved and regenerated. This
distinction saves you from the alterative: historic Roman
Catholicism, which teaches that baptism regenerates. It
can be lost through mortal sin, but it regenerates.
They've tried to come up with a Reformed view of
baptismal regeneration. It won't work. People who
occupy pews will ask, are ail persons baptized regenerate?
They'll have to say yes. Now they'll have to come up
with a new doctrine of regeneration. So a whole third
category of persons will have to come up. It might be like
an Arminian doctrine of common grace: God bestows
the Gospel as much to the elect and non-elect, and what
distinguishes the elect is what we do with what God
grants. They've painted themselves into a corner here.
Historic Reformed theology has always distinguished
without separating sign and thing signified in the
sacraments. I think the statement could be taken in a good
way, but in the context of other things affirmed it seems at
best confused.
H. Johnson: In my May 2002 conversation with Wilkins, he
read an excerpt to me from the Westminster Confession
of Faith 28:6, "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to
that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet
notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the
grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited
and conferred by the Holy Ghost ... " He read the section
up to this point and asked if I agreed with the statement.
He didn't tell me where it was from There was a pause
5 2 the COUNSEL of CHALCEDON
and then it hit me that it was from the Confession and I
said, "and ... ," and he chuckled. Alright, he said, I'll read
the whole thing. By this time I had found my copy of
the Confession and followed as he read the rest of the
sentence, "to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace
belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own
will, in His appointed time."
We ta&ed about the difference these distinctions make.
Without qualifying statements, the first part of the
sentence in the Confession 28:6 does not reflect what the
Bible teaches concerning the efficacy of baptism. Water
baptism does not save. In Steve's new system, he doesn't
want any of the distinguishing phrases. But it is these
qualifiers that make this a true summary of what the Bible
teaches. I also talked with him about the covenant people
of God being addressed as those in need of conversion,
like in Deut. 10:16 and Jer. 4 and 9, and John 3. I also
tail(ed with Schlissel about these passages. It's alarming
to me that this new paradigm shifts the focus off the
Mediator Who is the source of our life and onto a work of
man, namely water baptism.
P. McDade: In your interview, Steve Wilkins exposits
Tit. 3:5 saying: "washing is something that results in
regeneration." Paul is not saying that. It is rather, the
renewal of the Holy Spirit that fulfills the type of washing
or baptism. He says it's the washing of regeneration. Paul
is taking the sign and holding it up for the spiritual reality
to teach us, as the sign is always to do. The Monroe men
eliminate the distinction between sign and thing signified
and instead assume that it's the sign that carries the grace.
Q: With the earfy reformers - Jvho some of these men hearken
to - im't there a lot less of the refinement JJJe're used to because of
our Confessions? These men seem to prifer to go back to simpler
statements, things JJJe've refined and distinguished that the earfy
reformers didn't bother to, and thry seem to think that healthier.
C. Venema: That sounds to me like they don't like their
confession. But you'll find most of these refinements
implicit in Calvin and Bullinger. Bullinger wrote the
Second Helvetic Confession. This confession probably
holds the sacrament and the reality more apart than
the Westminster Confession. That these things are
distinguished is the common consensus of the early,
middle and late Reformed tradition.
Q: And that's true Jvith the visible and invisible church as JJJell?
C. Venema: It's in Augustine. Calvin talks about that in
the Institutes. There's a lot of historical ignorance here, a
kind of pleading with the public on the basis of a vacuum
of lmowledge. I read these statements all the time: that
the early reformers taught baptismal regeneration. Well, I
want chapter and verse and reputable scholarship before I
agree with that.
The MOllroe FOllr Speak Gilt (iJJith a Respollse)
R Godfrry: If you looked at Luther's Larger Catechism
I don't think you can make a case that Luther taught
baptismal regeneration. The doctrines of justification
and the sacraments were at the center of debate in the
16
th
century and were very extensively analyzed by the
early reformers. To try to set that against the Westminster
Confession is just a huge mistake.
P. McDade: Isn't that what's in view; the doctrine of
justification, when they plead against the latter reformed
formulations? It seems to me that is what's most critically
in view is the doctrine of justification. And if we get
anywhere beyond Trent we have problems.
C. Venema: Trent's a problem.
P. McDade: Apparentiy not for the Monroe men.
R Godfrry: This is also about the cultural setting in which
we find ourselves and what's the need of the day. I think
they are following the path followed over and over again
through the history of the church that when the church
faces moral problems, the solution is going to be a new
justification. And I understand that Dr. Robertson is
going to publish a book shortiy entitied, The Ctlrre!1t
Jllstification COlltrovel"!), through the Trinity Foundation. I
look forward to reading what this great godly man has to
say regarding these issues.
P. McDade: They mean something different when they
say election as well. When John Barach says that "if Esau
had died an infant he would doubdess have been elect,"
you can see this. To be elect is to be a baptized church
member who has not apostatized. There is no decree of
God from the foundation of the world in view; God can
not say to the circumcised or baptized: Esau have I hated,
unless his free will has effected apostasy.
P. J..;fcDade: It's obvious in this Barach quote about Esau.
There's a time when he was elect and another time when
he wasn't. It's because he lived and he's not among the
elect. Election has a totally different meaning than what it
does in the Reformed faith.
form of legalism. To be sure there are
aspects of antinomianism in American
evangelical culture that need addressing
and correction, but the answer to
immorality - the reformers would certainly
say - is a balanced preaching of Law and
Gospel. You never get anyone living a
sanctified life by replacing the Gospel
Q: Is it that thry are onjy talking abo/If cOlporate electioll? Is that
also llJhat thry mean 0 salIJation?
________ -L __________
They mean something
different by terms like
salvation and faith.
That's why it's so dif-
ficult for many people
H. JOhIlSOIl: If you look at Shepherd's
work, The Call of Grace, he will use the
term salvation sometimes to talk about
everything that Christ does. That's
legitimate, but it's illegitimate to switch
horses in the middle of a stream, in
with legalism, but it's a mistake the church
makes over and over in its history.
to ... see how radical this
new paradigm is that
they're proposing.
the middle of a sentence, and to talk
about justification in terms of the word
"salvation" and then ridicule salvation
Gustification) by faith alone. He switches
Q: So the Gospe! is flot the La}}) or vice versa?
R Goc!frry: He's a good medieval thinker
when he says that.
C. Venema: Sounds like unadulterated Pelagianism to me.
The medieval synthesis on justification, which was semi-
Pelagian, did give quite a bit of place to grace. Our works
are, of course, by virtue of that prior working of God's
grace in this view. They finish the job. But at least there's
grace operative. I don't think you could get a signatory to
Trent who would agree with the statement that the Law
is the Gospel and the Gospel is the Law. Pelagius would
agree with it. I'm not sure I know what he means by tilat.
I'm hoping he means something other than what he said.
H. Johnson: They mean something different by terms like
salvation and faith. That's why it's so difficult for many
people to hear these men without seeing the whole picture
of this new paradigm and to see how radical this new
paradigm is that they're proposing. This is the difficulty
of understanding the force of Norman Shepherd's
position as well. Let me also mention that Dr. O. Palmer
Robertson has much to say about this controversy over
uses of the term, and thereby turns
around and attacks justification by faith
alone. They also use this imprecise language when talking
about tile definition of biblical faith. the Confession 14:
1 shows tile emphasis of Scripture is on the ministry of
the word as the ordinary instrument whereby the Spirit
of Christ works faith in the hearts of the elect. The
sacraments and prayer are given to increase the faith of
those previously mentioned in this section, namely the
elect. tile Confession here uses the term election in terms
of particular election, not corporate. John Murray has an
excellent article in ZOlldervall S Pictorial ElliJclopedia of the
Bible, "Election:' dealing with the different uses of tile
term, "elect" in the Scriptures. Again, the lVIonroe men
are ignoring the Bible's use of the term "election."
The Confession 14:2 defines faith in terms of believing
and acting upon the Word of God, but goes on to describe
the principle acts of saving faith, "But the principal acts
of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon
Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal
life, by virtue of the covenant of grace." As faith is
defined by these men, it obscures receiving and resting
theCOUNSELofCHALCEDON 53
The MOllroe FOllr Speak Qllt (1JJith a Response)
upon Christ alone. Shepherd says the righteousness of
faith is the obedience of faith.
I called Schlissel on the phone two days after we passed
our resolutions and we talked, among many passages,
about the Epistle of James. He said just mentioning
James 2 makes you uncomfortable, doesn't it? I said no.
Then he asked how do you square James saying we are
justified by works and not faith only? I answered that
in the immediate context, James is answering a question:
what kind of faith justifies? (verse 14). He's not denying
that faith alone in Christ justifies, he's asking what kind
of faith is genuine? In Acts 15, James stands up and says
the Judaizers are wrong. You don't need any works, just
faith alone in Christ to be justified. Works play no part
in justification. He goes on in Acts 15 to then describe
works as an inseparable fruit. This is what the whole
Scripture teaches.
P. McDade: Trent insists in Canon 24 that justice is
received, preserved, and increased. Justification is a
process in Romanism. At issue is the judicial theology of
the Reformation. The one man's act is what's counted.
If we're counted in Adam, we're dead in Adam, and we
produce work, sin. To be counted in Jesus Christ changes
all of this. Then we are given a regenerated heart, justified
in his sight through faith alone, and become fruitful. Are
the fruits the justification? No, Christ is our justification.
The result of being justified is fruit, thankfulness, and that
means I'm concerned with the moral law. But sanctified
obedience to the moral law is not justifying.
H. Johllson: It's a straw man argument to say that the
Westminster standards and the Reformed position, which
the Monroe men maintain have caused the demise of our
culture, disparage good works. If a person is genuinely
united to Christ, genuinely justified, sanctification will be
present as Heb. 12:14 declares along with a host of other
Scriptures. But if the biblical distinction is not made
between the two, it's a mess. You end up with some form
of Roman Catholicism or Arminianism. It breaks my
heart that these men don't see that. Our resolutions were
pastorally motivated. We are concerned about these men
and with the church because these are crucial issues. The
Gospel is at stake and therefore the eternal destiny of
men.
Endnotes
1 Christian Renewal (p.o. Box 777,Jordan Station, ON
LOR lS0 and EO. Box 770, Lewiston, NY, 14092, 905-
562-5719) .
THE NEWiSP.UTHERN
PRESBYTEr N REVIEW
www.chalcedon.org/review

2004 Issue 1 - The Monroe Four Speak Out (With A Response) - Counsel of Chalcedon

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2004 Issue 1 - The Monroe Four Speak Out (With A Response) - Counsel of Chalcedon

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Monroe

Four Speak Out

Potrebbero piacerti anche