Chapter 16 of RINE is on heretics, and their relationship to the covenant.
Wilson starts by noting that many responses to heresies by the orthodox have their own heresy underlying the critique: individualism. It is important to state here that the dangers of individualism are difficult to over-estimate. The Enlightenment has done the church no favors. However, we should not throw the individual-salvation-baby out with the individualism-me-and-my-Bible-and-Jesus-alone-don’t-get-in-my-face-bathwater. There is such an emphasis on the corporate in the Federal Vision that I wonder if the “What must I do to be saved?” question (see Acts 16:30) doesn’t get thrown into the background too much. Is this not still the most important question that anyone can ask?
Wilson wants to steer a middle course between those who schmooze (that is, those who over-emphasize unity), and those who “soon find (them)selves members of the church of just one, and we are starting to have doubts about him” (pg. 141). Wilson does not want to have to choose between unity and purity. The emphasis of Wilson’s point is more on critiqueing those who are supposedly over-emphasizing truth at the expense of unity. He notes that it is “hard to find the brakes” (pg. 141). He argues that the proper course is to call everyone who is properly baptized (into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) a Christian. This does not mean that we are saying that everyone so-called is a possessor of eternal life, any more than saying that an adulterous husband is faithfully fulfilling his marriage vows. Wilson wants to stress that calling a person a Christian may even heighten the criticism, since the person is not living up to the vows he has taken in baptism.
This leads into a discussion of heresy itself. Heresy reveals faithfulness (pg. 142), in the sense of clarifying who is keeping their vows, and who isn’t. Heresy is obvious (ibid). I would have to disagree here. Paul says that some people “secretly bring in destructive heresies.” Satan often masquerades as an angel of light. Satan is a master of deception. I do not think that heresy is always obvious at all. In fact, it seems to me that the opposite is true. Why else is there so much hoopla over different doctrine? Was it obvious to the early church that Arianism was wrong? If it was, why did it take so amazingly long to rid the church of it? Arianism was smooth and subtle, playing on Greek iotas and such. Wilson argues that “sheep don’t have to go to graduate school to find out the difference between a shepherd and a wolf” (pg. 142). Again, I beg to differ. I know of many church situations where the pastor has been a heretic, and the church became divided over him, some believing that he was just fine, and others thinking he was the devil incarnate. It was not blindingly obvious at all. Furthermore, heretics do not always fall headlong. Sometimes they can stay in the church their entire lives, and never show that they have left the fold. I get the distinct impression that Wilson is trying to define heresy such that the Federal Vision cannot possibly qualify, by definition.
I do heartily agree with Wilson that heretics are to be identified. I have this question for Wilson: who identifies heretics? Is it not the church? What if almost all of Reformedom as defined by NAPARC have defined Federal Vision as being out of accord (let’s leave the word “heresy” out of it for a moment) with their doctrinal standards? Are they all idiots? Have they all misunderstood the FV so completely? Have all of these lightweight theological nincompoops like Sproul, Duncan, Phillips, Knight, Pipa, Robbins (Carl), Smith, White, Clark, Godfrey, Horton, Van Drunen, Gaffin, Trueman, Jue, Waters, Schwertley, Fesko, Hutchinson(s), Gunn, Pipa, Beisner, Aquila, Venema (and the rest of MARS faculty), and last (but least) Keister so completely misunderstood the FV? Understand that I am not here committing the fallacy of “numbers makes right.” I would only be committing that fallacy if I said that because all of these men say that the FV is wrong, that therefore the FV is wrong. It is remotely possible that all of these theological featherweights have completely misunderstood the FV from top to bottom. I am asking a different question: what is more likely? That these critics have understood or misunderstood the FV? I see lots of protestations on the part of FV advocates that they have been misunderstood. I see far less proof of it. In fact, hardly any proof of it. In fact, hardly any evidence.
That being said, I agree with Wilson that adultery is not the same thing as divorce, and I further appreciate his analogy of a house and the place of heresy within it. I am not so sure about the definition of church discipline as being part of the well-being of the church, and not so much the being of the church. It is certainly true that Calvin did not assert that discipline was one of the marks of the church. However, the Reformed Confessions do. WCF 25.4 and BC 29 prove this quite adequately. I trust that Wilson will not call these documents “doctrinal perfectionistic” (pg. 146). The point I want to make here is this: sure, we can say that discipline concerns the “well-being” of the church. But in terms of the being of the church, does God want the church barely to survive? Or does He want the church healthy? Similarly, one can say that food belongs more to the well-being of the human body than to its actual existence. But given the fact that so much of the body is concerned with eating and drinking, would anyone really object to saying that food is necessary for the being of the body? And, even if Calvin did not say that it was one of the marks of the church, he did say that “Accordingly, as the saving doctrine of Christ is the soul of the church, so does discipline serve as its sinews, through which the members of the body hold together, each in its own place.” (IV.12.1 of the Inst.)
Green Baggins 