Smith on Waters
Recently Guy Waters published a book, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis. in which he makes some criticisms of things I’ve said in lectures and articles. Bill Smith responds with an extensive review of Waters’s book.
He points out, among other things, that Waters has this remarkable sentence about what he sees as my views:
To understand assurance in a subjective sense, Barach appears to suggest, is to compromise biblical grace, in that we “contribute to God’s election” or election is grounded on human works (p. 136).Â
I don’t recall ever having said any such thing and I certainly don’t believe that “understanding assurance in a subjective sense,” by which I take Waters to be referring to personal assurance of salvation, is compromising grace or contributing to God’s election or grounding election on human works. I have never said anything like that.
As Bill Smith points out in his review, what Waters is picking up on is a comment I made about the exegesis of 2 Peter 1:10 (“Be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure”). What I said was this:
What does he [Peter] mean? The context here is not dealing with personal assurance. He is also not saying that we can somehow contribute to God’s election or that God’s election is based on something in ourselves or something we have done (cited by Waters, p. 136).Â
As you can see, I did say that 2 Peter 1:10 isn’t dealing with personal assurance. Peter doesn’t say, “Make yourselves sure of your calling and election,” though that’s often how people take it. Rather, he’s talking about living in a way that “confirms” or “makes sure” one’s calling and election. In saying this, however, I am not disparaging an interest in personal assurance. I’m merely saying that that isn’t Peter’s focus here.
Nor do I say that an interest in personal assurance is an attempt to contribute to God’s election as if it’s based on something we do. Rather, I say that, in telling us to make our calling and election sure, Peter is not saying that we are to contribute to them or that they are somehow based on us and our works. God’s calling and election are not grounded on anything in ourselves.
But Waters has somehow gotten these two negative statements (“Not X and also not Y”) jumbled in such a way that he thinks I’m saying that X is Y, that an interest in assurance is somehow a quest to contribute to our election. That’s unfortunate.
What is even more unfortunate is that this misunderstanding could easily have been avoided. Several months ago, I e-mailed Waters, and offered to review the sections in which he discussed me so that together we could make sure that the finished work represented my views accurately. He was not willing to let me interact with what he had written, however. Now the work is in print, errors and all, even though those errors could easily have been cleared up beforehand.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:04 am
Br. Barach:
ATMU, Waters is saying that the standard interpretation of the passage indicates that Peter is talking about personal assurance.
Elsewhere he argues, persuasively, that you appear to disallow subjective and, instead, propose the legitmacy and exclusivity of objective assurance (like water baptism and covenant membership – p.137).
So, his argument follows: That if Peter, in this passage, evidences subjective assurance; and You say he isn’t even talking about assurance (or, concommitantly, contributing to God’s election, etc. – ie: these comments, without any other reference point, as they appear to have none, must be equated with the idea of subjective assurance), added to your previous arguments (re: election through covenant); we wind up with the impression that: you are arguing that Reformed interpreters (who disagree with your reading of this passage)are arguing that to conceive of assurance subjectively is to ground divine election in human works or to conceive of election as synergistic (paraphrase – p.138).
As far as Water’s lack of interaction with the subjects of his criticism – this is a fact of publishing (so I am told). Ideally, all things should be ironed out and clarified – but this process may have delayed publication for several years. (The topic is both current and – as most orthodox would agree – in need of immediate adressing.)
Besides, with the (alleged) clamour for pre-publication interaction by the various critees[?] (it would be funny to say ‘critters’; but the subject is too serious); would concommittant retractions and public renouncings of former positions be forthcoming (assuming they wish to make their view orthodox)?
Anyways, hope you get a chance to read the book – as I think Waters did a very admirable job of fairly representing FV postions and critiquing them logically, by the standards and by the Word.
by: Witsius (URL) on 2006-07-17 16:06:01
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Harry —
I’m not sure who ATMU is or why you invoke him at the beginning of your post. Perhaps a character from one of your Daniel Amos albums or from a novel by Lin Carter?
I grant what you say about the standard interpretation of the passage, namely, that it’s saying, “Make yourself sure of your calling and your election.” I just think that’s the wrong interpretation. What is being made sure here, according to the grammar, is our calling and election. We’re not made sure; they are.
Now you say that Waters claims that I appear to disallow subjective assurance. That isn’t exactly the case, though I can see how he might come to that conclusion. (On the other hand, he could have asked me.)
So, you say, his argument is:
“That if Peter, in this passage, evidences subjective assurance; and You say he isn’t even talking about assurance (or, concommitantly, contributing to God’s election, etc. – ie: these comments, without any other reference point, as they appear to have none, must be equated with the idea of subjective assurance), added to your previous arguments (re: election through covenant); we wind up with the impression that: you are arguing that Reformed interpreters (who disagree with your reading of this passage)are arguing that to conceive of assurance subjectively is to ground divine election in human works or to conceive of election as synergistic (paraphrase – p.138).”
This is an exceedingly dense paragraph, with a lot packed into it, and I’m not sure that I follow it or understanding the reasoning in it. You’re welcome to try again.
Part of what you say puzzles me, perhaps because you use the word “concommitantly” and I don’t know what you mean by it here.
My point was simply that Peter isn’t talking about personal assurance of salvation. That isn’t Peter’s focus.
Then I said that when he tells us to make our calling and election sure, Peter is not saying that our calling and election depends on our good works, on what we do.
I said that in case anyone who heard the lecture would think that I was somehow claiming that God’s election and calling is based on something in us.
As the original quotation ought to make clear, I was saying, “Peter isn’t saying X and Peter is also not saying Y.” I wasn’t identifying X and Y. I was ruling out two possible (but very different) readings of the passage, in order to go on to say what I think Peter IS saying.
In another parenthetical comment, you claim that I teach “election through covenant.” I don’t know what that means.
Then you conclude by claiming that I think “to conceive of assurance subjectively is to ground divine election in human works or to conceive of election as synergistic.” Again, I’m baffled. This is precisely the problem that I’m addressing in this blog entry, Harry.
In the paragraph in question in my original lecture, I wasn’t talking about personal assurance. I merely said (in passing) that that’s not what 2 Peter 1:10 is about. I certainly wasn’t trying to criticize a desire for personal assurance or a desire to make oneself sure of one’s calling and election. I was simply saying what I thought 2 Peter 1:10 is and isn’t about.
In short, Waters (followed, apparently, by you) has misread a simple paragraph very badly. Very simply: “This isn’t X and this isn’t Y” doesn’t mean “X is Y and therefore X is bad.”
Besides, even if what I said COULD somehow be read the way Waters reads it, that surely isn’t the most charitable way to read it.
I understand that Waters and his publishers wanted to get this book into print while the subject was still timely. That’s their problem. My concern was with accuracy.
Apparently Waters or the publisher did share the manuscript with some people because, after all, the OPC document cites Waters. Someone out there read it.
But the people who were the targets of Waters’s book, people who are ministers in good standing in Reformed and Presbyterian churches and some even in Waters’s own denomination, weren’t allowed to see or to interact with what he’d written — even when they wrote to him and offered to help.
That, of course, is Waters’s own choice. It’s his book and he wasn’t required to show it to me before publishing it. But as a result, his book contains a number of serious misunderstandings.
Someday I may sit down and read the book, but I have a hard time imagining parting with the cash and the other reviews I’ve seen don’t incline me to give Waters much attention.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:05 am
And in turn, John, it is perfectly evident that Smith misunderstood Waters. ere is the entire quotation:
“Barach appears to take the phrase commonly translated “make …sure” (Gl.: bebaian…poieisthai) as “ratify and confirm.” In this sense, he argues, the passage doesn’t treat the issue of assurance at all. To understand assurance in a subjective sense, Barach appears to suggest, is to compromise biblical grace, in that we “contribute to God’s election” or election is grounded on human works.” Would you not admit that Smith has not quoted the context of Waters’s statement? You say that the point of your statement was that 2 Peter 1:10 was not talking about assurance at all, and that Waters was misrepresenting you because he didn’t acknowledge this fact. It is plain from the entire quote that he did in fact understand you.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:36 am
Lane, when I wrote my blog entry, I had read not only Smith’s essay but also the relevant section of Waters. Smith may not have quoted the context of Waters’s statement, but I wasn’t drawing simply on Smith’s summary.
Waters is correct that I think 2 Peter 1:10 is not talking (directly) about assurance. I didn’t say anywhere in my blog entry that Waters misunderstood or misrepresented me at this point. See the paragraph that begins “As you can see, I did say…” There I affirm that Waters is correctly understanding me at this point.
But Waters seems to think that I’m opposed to “subjective assurance.” He writes: “To understand assurance in a subjective sense, Barach appears to suggest, is to compromise biblical grace, in that we ‘contribute to God’s election’ or election is grounded on human works.”
That’s where he misunderstands me rather completely. I have not said that an interest in assurance of salvation is compromising biblical grace or an attempt to contribute to God’s election or to make election be grounded on human works. I have never said or thought such a thing.
What I said, as I explain in my blog entry, is this:
“The context here [2 Pet. 1:10] is not dealing with personal assurance. He is also not saying that we can somehow contribute to God’s election or that God’s election is based on something in ourselves or something we have done.”
I make two negative statements here: Peter is not talking about X (personal assurance of salvation). Peter is not saying Y (we can contribute to our own election so that it’s based on something we’ve done).
Waters seems to think that by denying that Peter is saying X and denying that Peter is saying Y, I’m saying that X is Y. But that’s a complete misunderstanding.
I could say, “Lane Keister is not a girl. Lane Keister is not a Canadian.” It would be a misunderstanding of that statement to conclude that I believe a girl is a Canadian.