Reformed is not enough

I’ve been greatly enjoying reading Doug Wilson’s Reformed Is Not Enough, subtitled Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant. I know – it’s a badly overdue read, but never mind – better late than never.

So far, I’ve read Part 1, which is some necessary ground clearing. What he wants to say could easily sound like a rejection of orthodox Christian faith. So that we realise that it is not this, we have 6 chapters affirming much that Christianity has always taught, and showing how these truths relate to and do not contradict what he will go on to say.

Even though much of it is pre-amble, they are very important chapters, and they contain some great moments. Like the ones below…

The church needs constant reformation – not least in recovering the objectivity of the covenant.

“Semper reformanda is not something we should all chant together right up until someone actually tries it.”

Particularly helpful quotation on how God’s sovereignty does not merely co-exist with our freedom, but ordains it. He’s expouding Westminster Confession 3.1 that God’s sovereignty establishes “the liberty or contingency of second causes.”

“What he foreordained was a world full of free choices. He not only ordained that a man would be in the ice cream store choosing one of thirty-one flavors, He also decreed which flavor he would choose. But that is not all; He ordained that the cookie dough ice cream would be chosen by this man freely. God ordains noncoercively.” (Page 26)

“Simply put, the objectivity of the covenant does not mean that a man does not have to be born again.” (Page 33)

On regeneration:

“The picture [of the fact that those who believe are born again, and those who do not believe remain under wrath] is complicated, however, by two additional historical variables – what about those who say they believe (through baptism) but do not really believe? And what about those who believe but have not yet been baptized? The following table summarizes the four basic categories

 
Believers
Unbelievers

Covenant Members
Covenant Keepers
Covenant Breakers

Nonmembers
Catechumens
Heathens

...The modern evangelical tendency is to assume that we have the ability to see the heart, and we then look at covenant membership through the lens of that mysterious ability. But we cannot see the heart.” (Page 34)

“But the fact that God draws [one whom he is calling] efficaciously does not mean that he is made into a robot or puppet. He comes most freely, genuinely wanting the salvation which God gives him the desire for.

This is not a true desire, some might say, if God gives it. Is desire for food true desire? Who gives that? Is desire for sexual relations true desire? Who gives that?” (Page 37)

And I love this one, about how dangerous it is to read formularies through modern eyes:

“If a time traveler from the time of the Reformation showed up — say, one of the men who wrote the Westminster Confession — he would rapidly find himself brought up on charges for teaching things contrary to the Confession he helped to write.” (Page 44)

Very helpful on faith and works:

“We are saved through faith alone, but never through a faith that is alone. Saving faith is never lonely. We can separate faith from other graces and virtues logically and conceptually, via abstraction, but not practically. We may distinguish, but never separate.“ (Pages 45-46, emphasis added)

And again:

“This is why faith alone is never alone. Faith is the only instrument God uses in our justification. But when God has done this wonderful work, the faithful instrument does not shrivel up and die. It continues to love God and obey Him. If it does not, but just lies there like a corpse, then we have good reason to believe that it was lying there like a corpse some days before — not being therefore an instrument of justification. Faith without works is a dead faith, and a dead faith never justified anybody.” (Page 46)

Helpful on the dangers of silencing the Bible with our systematic theology

“What this means is that systematic interpretations may be allowed to interpret what the Scriptures say (and indeed, we must do this), but they must never be allowed to replace what the Scriptures say. We can tell we have stumbled at this place when we disallow (for the sake of our systematic understanding) a phrase or statement that the Bible itself uses. ... The Bible says that baptism saves. Why do we not use this language? It is becuase our systematic language has replaced scriptural language.” (Page 54)

But we mustn’t over-react by disallowing systematic control, because

“Heretics often wrap themselves in biblical terminology, and the orthodox frequently have to use phrases that are not found in the Bible anywhere, like Trinity.” (Page 54)

Don’t misunderstand an emphasis on covenant:

“We do not mean that individual believers are a nullity or that everything important must happen at the corporate covenant level. Again, the fact that we believe in a corporate covenant omelette does not mean we disbelieve in eggs.” (Page 57)