The Nine Declarations Versus Wilkins, part 1
July 6, 2007 at 9:17 am (Covenant, Federal Vision, Heresy)
Not to have too many irons in the fire at once on this issue. But Wilkins has sent a document to his Presbytery responding to the Nine Declarations of the denomination’s study committee report. I intend to blog through Wilkins’s response point by point. It is important to note that Wilkins sees himself as “reiterating (his) views.” In other words, he doesn’t feel the need to shift ground.
Point one has to do with the Covenant of Works. The issue for Wilkins is whether or not Adam would have earned eternal life in any sense by his obedience. God intended to glorify Adam. However, it would have been all of grace. Apparently, Adam did not have the condition of perfect and personal obedience assigned to him in order to attain that glorification. There is this problem with Wilkins: why did the divines call that covenant a covenant of works? What did they mean by that designation? Whatever one can say about it, surely we can say that, in the minds of the divines, an idea of works was connected to the pre-Fall covenant made with Adam. I would like the FV to give their explanation as to why the pre-Fall covenant was called a covenant of works by the divines. The distinction between covenant of works and covenant of grace suggests that the contrast in view here means that the first covenant did not operate primarily on the basis of grace.
And again, because this point is misunderstood so often by the FV, let it be here known that the pre-Fall covenant did have aspects of God’s condescension. I don’t think I am aware of anyone (even Kline!) who would disagree with that. However, that is not the question here. The question is this: on what principle, or condition, would Adam have entered glory? The WCF is clear here: it would have been upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. It is usually objected here that Adam already had life and partook from the Tree of Life. However, Adam did not have the glorified body (which is immutably glorious). This is quite clear from 1 Corinthians 15, where the Adamic body is contrasted with the glorified body. Secondly, I see no contradiction between saying that Adam partook from the Tree of Life (a statement with which I agree) and saying that there was still a further, eschatological body which Adam would have attained. It was a period of probation. Vos has the best arguments for this in Biblical Theology, pp. 19-40. Therefore, Wilkins’s assumptions are incorrect when he says this:
I do believe that God’s purpose was to “glorify” Adam if Adam had abided faithful. But this “glorification” would have been a gift from God and not something earned or “merited” by Adam’s works of obedience. If Adam had been obedient, that obedience would have been the fruit of the grace and power of the Spirit who had been given to him and not the fruit of his own native strength or ability.
Aside from gutting the Covenant of Works of any and all aspects of works, the logic is faulty. He explicitly denies that Adam had the free choice in his own native strength and ability to choose what was right. Wilkins is not denying the free choice of Adam here. Rather, he is denying that the free choice was resultant from Adam’s own native powers (yes, given him by God). This seems to me a denial that Adam was created very good (וְהִנֵּה־טוֹב מְאֹד). Why would Adam have needed God’s sustaining moral power if he was already created good?
And the reward given to Adam, it was on the basis of pactum merit. Of course, this is a category that every FV writer denies (although Wilson has admitted that one could use the term, even if he really doesn’t like it). Pactum merit gets around all the problems that the FV poses for traditional CoW terminology. Pactum merit proscribes Adam’s having any kind of claim on God other than the covenantal one. Adam’s obedience would have not have had any kind of intrinsic merit. Rather, the nature of the agreement was such that the condition for glorification and the end of the probation would have been Adam’s perfect and personal obedience.
The problem here really comes into sharp focus when we look at the antitype, Jesus Christ. Presumably what is good for the type is good for the antitype. Jesus needed God’s sustaining moral power so that He could resist temptation. Therefore, God did not reward Christ for His obedience. Rather, Christ was justified by faith like the rest of us. This is the logical conclusion of the FV position. Of course, in the traditional schema, Christ not only earns pactum merit for us, but also condign merit, since He did have claims on the Father. Christ’s work was both condign and pactum merit, since there is a difference between Christ and Adam: namely, Christ is God and Adam wasn’t. God can make a claim on Himself.
Stewart said,
July 6, 2007 at 9:43 am
“I would like the FV to give their explanation as to why the pre-Fall covenant was called a covenant of works by the divines. The distinction between covenant of works and covenant of grace suggests that the contrast in view here means that the first covenant did not operate primarily on the basis of grace.”
Could give an explanation as to why they also called it a covenant of life? Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “primarily.” Could you unpack that a bit more?
Stewart said,
July 6, 2007 at 9:47 am
Lane, do you see condition and merit as the same thing?
greenbaggins said,
July 6, 2007 at 9:58 am
Sure. The divines called it a covenant of life as to its goal. They called it a covenant of works as to its principle, or terms. They called it a covenant of nature as to its setting. I am indebted to Scott Clark for this understanding:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=283748&postcount=4
What I mean by primarily is this: I do not deny that God has graciously condescended to make a covenant with Adam. Adam could have no claim on God that God should do this. This is because of Adam’s creatureliness. If you wish to call this God’s “grace,” I do not have a problem with that, as long as this kind of grace is distinguished from the “demerited” kind of grace that KIine talks about. I would rather use the term “condescension” anyway, as it avoids misunderstanding better. Furthermore, that is what the divines did. They never spoke of grace before the Fall.
I see the condition of Adam’s obedience as being precisely the same thing as pactum merit.
Xon said,
July 6, 2007 at 10:35 am
My body right now would be immutably glorious, if God chose to make it so. It is God in whom we live, move, and have our being. In Heaven God does not give us some magic body which is able to survive forever “on its own.” We are not deists, right? God is both the author and the perfecter/completer of all things, isn’t He?
Xon said,
July 6, 2007 at 10:35 am
Oh, and I know that point is kind of off-topic. You don’t have to respond if you don’t want. Sorry.
greenbaggins said,
July 6, 2007 at 10:37 am
It’s an interesting question, Xon. If God chose to give us the glorified body right now, it would be because all sin had been eliminated from our soul, and that Christ had come back. Obviously, our glorified body is still utterly dependent on God.
Stewart said,
July 6, 2007 at 10:38 am
I always thought that the inclusion of the phrase “covenant of life” simply reflected the different views present at the assembly. Would this be wrong?
Xon said,
July 6, 2007 at 10:41 am
Right, but that’s straight James Jordan right there. We’re on the same page.
And, yikes, my earlier not quite on-topic point comes again:
Yikes, Lane! So in glory we will no longer need God’s sustaining moral power? We will be glorified, and then we will continue on in perfect moral existence on our own?
greenbaggins said,
July 6, 2007 at 10:44 am
My understanding of the CoW is that the various terms describe various aspects of that covenant. I deny that the WS are a consensus document on this point (as I deny that it is a consensus document in all other areas).
greenbaggins said,
July 6, 2007 at 10:46 am
Xon, there is a difference between moral power and sustaining creative power. This was in my mind even as I wrote the above. We always need God’s sustaining power. However, when we have our glorious bodies, then God will give us that holiness to be in ourselves. Adam needed nothing more from God than he already had in order to obey the law.
Xon said,
July 6, 2007 at 10:49 am
Okay, Lane so I think we would all agree to the following:
1. Adam, like all creatures, was utterly dependent upon God for everything.
2. Adam was in a probationary period in the garden. If he had obeyed God, he would have moved into a greater glory. (Or are you saying that he would simply have “moved into glory”, as though he wasn’t in glory at all originally? I’m not quite clear on your position on this point. In either case, though we agree that he was supposed to move from one “good” state to an even better state).
3. If Adam disobeyed God, then his life in communion with the One on whom he was totally dependent for all things would have been cut off.
So, and I ask in all sincerity, what is the controversial proposition that you would add to this list as something that TRs believe but FVers don’t, or vice versa? Or do you think that we really don’t agree on one of these I’ve already listed? (I’m not saying that this is just a disagreement over words. I don’t know at this point. I’m trying to put my finger on the disagreement(s); hence my question.)
greenbaggins said,
July 6, 2007 at 10:55 am
I would say that the TR’s would insert a proposition that Adam’s obedience (although due to God anyway) was still going to be rewarded by God as a form of merit by agreement. God said, in effect, to Adam, “Adam, you need to obey Me anyway. However, I am going to reward your obedience with eternal glory.”
Again, a point that needs to be remembered in all of this is that Adam’s sin condignly merited hell, even if his obedience would only have pactumly merited glory.
Xon said,
July 6, 2007 at 11:06 am
Okay, but how is this really different from (2)? I mean, what do you see is the difference between saying “If you obey, you get eternal glory” and “If you obey, you are rewarded with eternal glory.” What does “reward” mean there, especially since we all agree that Adam owed the obedience anyway and that he is dependent upon God for everything. So, this is a “crowning His own works” kind of ‘reward’, right?
So far, I think everyone can agree still. So the question is that phrase “as a form of merit.” What does this mean? I mean, is this just a fiat “Look, I’m going to give you something if you obey, and it’s something that you do not deserve but we’re going to call it ‘merit’, okay?” I assume you mean something a little more than that by “as a form of merit.”
I’m not trying to be obtuse, but I would find more discussion of what this pactum merit really is (i.e., in what way is it even “merit” properly at all? Or is it just a phrase with the word ‘merit’ in it?) to be helpful.
Tim Wilder said,
July 6, 2007 at 11:11 am
“And again, because this point is misunderstood so often by the FV, let it be here known that the pre-Fall covenant did have aspects of God’s condescension. I don’t think I am aware of anyone (even Kline!) who would disagree with that.”
It is the Federal Vision that denies God’s condescension.
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=3914&Data=3003#posts
“(2) Yes, I say you men have read a modern notion of merit thinking back into the Confessions, a notion that is not there. Now, I boldly and blatantly say that the Westminster Standards are fully of baloney on this matter: The “distance” between God and man? What Vantillian creationist can talk that way? The promise was the Tree of Life. Hardly. God did such a crummy job of creation that He now has to “condescend” to enter into a covenant with us? This is scholastic theology at its worst, and we Vantillians left it behind long ago. So, yes, I certainly don’t agree with how you chaps have set it out. But (and now I have to stop again).”
” James B. Jordan - 5/21/2007 9:55:01 AM “
Xon said,
July 6, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Right, Tim, “they” (i.e., Jim Jordan) deny condescension b/c God is already with us by grace. God created us to be in fellowship with Him, so there is no need for “condescension” in that sense. But it is all grace.
R. F. White said,
July 6, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Xon,
Help us out by defining what the term “grace” means in the pre-fall context.
Matt said,
July 6, 2007 at 12:55 pm
It doesn’t really matter what Wilkins said about the Covenant of Works because Dr. Lucas said that wasn’t really a “heart of the matter” issue anyway. He could take an exception to it and that would be completely fine.
greenbaggins said,
July 6, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Matt, you are misreading the declarations. Look especially at declaration 1. That is meant to preserve the *theology* of the CoW, which means everything in it. Besides, even if it isn’t the worst problem with the FV, it doesn’t follow at all that an exception should be granted in such a case.
Xon said,
July 6, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Hey, Dr. White!
Grace means, ultimately, anything that is gratuitous–i.e., unnecessary. When God does that which He does not have to do, it is grace.
Grace means, also, divine favor. It is a disposition. So whenever God is favorably disposed towards someone, that is grace.
Putting these togther, I’d say that grace is unrequired/unnecessary favor. I’m also okay with calling it “unmerited favor”, but that word “merit” is tied up in this whole FV discussion (and I agree with FV concerns about the word) so I’m trying to avoid the term.
And, now speaking in the context of the Fall, it is easy to see that everything Adam had, including his creation and life itself, is from the grace of God.
I know that traditional Reformed dogmatics has wanted to define grace as “demerited favor,” not just unmerited favor. But I don’t see why the meaning should be narrowed in that way. Grace is gratuitous favor, whether demerited or simply unmerited. Hope that helps!
Lane, Matt is referring to Lucas’ explict statement defending the Report from the floor of GA. There he said that the nine declarations are what it’s really all about, and he said that those nine declarations don’t cover everything in the report’s argumentation. The cmte decided, said Lucas, that certain things in the report did not rise to the level of needing to be included in the declarations. He then gave examples of things that were not included in the declarations, and one of those examples was “the covenant of works.” So, that’s where Matt is coming from. You are overzealously reading into the declaration something that Lucas himself said we are not supposed to be reading into it.
Matt said,
July 6, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Exactly right, Xon. Lane, what exactly do you think Lucas meant by his statement?
Wes White said,
July 6, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Re: the state of glory to which Adam would attain.
1. He was able to sin. In the glorified state, he would not be able to sin.
2. In the creation state, he did not have as direct enjoyment of God because of his physical needs. In heaven, we will not need to eat or drink or sleep, but we will be like the angels in heaven in those respects (Mt. 22:30).
Wes White said,
July 6, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Re: FV vs. WCF on the covenants
While there may be exceptions, I think that we can agree as to the substance of the covenant with Adam. God graciously entered into covenant with Adam, Adam represented the human race, he was in a covenant, he had to obey perfectly, perfect obedience would be crowned with eternal life, and any sin would merit eternal death.
The problem I see is often that by introducing the language of condescension as if it were something new. Consequently, they may think that they are creating a tertium quid that stands between the covenant of works and covenant of grace and therefore balances works and grace in a way not heretofore expressed (see Shepherd, The Call of Grace). Consequently, the content of the covenant of works (”Do this, and live”
is confused with the content of the covenant of grace (”Believe, and you will be saved” 
thus blurring the distinctiveness of each covenant.
Matt said,
July 6, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Wes, really? and what about “obey the gospel?” hmmm…
Wes White said,
July 6, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Matt, really.
“Do this” refers not merely to doing anything but to perfect obedience (Dt. 26:27, Gal. 3:10).
“Obey the Gospel” is taken from the conditions that are annexed to the Gospel, namely, repent and believe. These do not constitute us righteous in the same way that perfect obedience does. The righteousness by which we are justified in the covenant of grace is the righteousness of Christ.
Second, even faith and repentance are not simply, “Do this and live.” They are also promised in the covenant of grace (Dt. 30:6, Jer. 31:33-34, Ez. 36:26-27, etc.). This is also why the WCF affirms that in the covenant of grace “God freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him….and promis[es] to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe” (WCF 7.3).
You can see the difference in Gal. 3:10-12. Traditional Reformed theology interprets this passage as Paul using these texts in their proper context. The FV, Norman Shepherd, NPP, Daniel Fuller, and a host of other modern theologians interpret the law passages as being quoted in the sense of their opponents since in their proper context “Do this and live” is the same as “believe and you will be saved,” according to them.
Matt said,
July 6, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Hmmm… so….Noah was righteous, and Job, and David, and who else…Lk.1:6. Your definition of righteous doesn’t line up with these scripture nor can it account for “repent”–Doing this–Turning from sin and following Christ, take up your cross, etc. Also, your view doesn’t even hold to anything Christ commands. So, after you explain these verses away by using your definition of “righteous” maybe you could do us the favor of telling us where in the Gospels does Jesus actually teach your gospel….
I say, ” follow me! ”
Deal with the text, brother.
Wes White said,
July 6, 2007 at 5:09 pm
On those passages, I’ll just refer you to reading carefully through Calvin’s commentaries on those passages and Turretin’s sources of explanation in his Institutes. They are quite adequate.
John 6:35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Stewart said,
July 6, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Re: #25
I think Matt just delivered a rhetorical version of the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique. Ouch…
Matt said,
July 6, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Thanks for the homework, but I’ve done mine.
That still doesn’t account for the various ways that “righteous” is used in the scriptures. You are trying to limit its use and it doesn’t account for “covenantal holiness” or “faithfulness.” This is why the FV has used the biblical uses of these words instead of just trying to fit them into a “none is righteous” model. Even when Paul says this it is quoted in a Psalm that speaks of those that are “righteous” in contrast to those that aren’t!
Here is your homework: Read Calvin’s commentaries on those passages (Luke 1:6) that have “righteous” and I am willing to bet he uses probably half of those verses in favor of my interpretation.
I am still waiting to see how you find “the gospel” in the Gospels. For now I still see people “coming” to Jesus and following him–especially as they are preparing to put down sword and “flee to the hills” to escape a burning Jerusalem at the hand of Romans. So, sure, “go” to Jesus–that is “doing and living”
Matt said,
July 6, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Here’s your answer form Calvin:
Luke 1:6
“For we ought to consider
in what manner God deals with them. It is according to the covenant whichhe has made with them, the first clause of which is a free reconciliation and daily pardon, by which he forgives their sins. They are accounted righteous and blameless, because their whole life testifies that they are devoted to righteousness.”
Sounds like “covenant holiness” or “righteous” to me.
“I do own that the righteousness which
is ascribed to them ought to be regarded as obtained, not by the merit of
works, but by the grace of Christ; and yet, because the Lord has not imputed
to them their sins, he has been pleased to bestow on their holy, though
imperfect life”
You see, these Christian are called “righteous.” because of Christ. Now, are you willing to follow Calvin and call us “righteous” as well, not because we earned it but because we are forgiven? Well, good. I am glad I can be called righteous and call other brothers righteous as well.
There is Calvin for you.
Robert K. said,
July 6, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Please, Mr. FVist, don’t “explode” my heart. Though I suspect my shield of faith will protect me well-enough…
Matt, on a serious note, you need to read a 16th century Calvinist by name of Petrus Dathenus. He wrote a little book called the Pearl of Christian Comfort. It will help you to understand these issues of law and gospel. His dialogue partner in that book, a real life English lady, spoke some of the same misunderstandings you are speaking here.
barlow said,
July 6, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Robert - why don’t you try using Dathenus’s arguments against Matt’s arguments?
Matt said,
July 6, 2007 at 9:32 pm
No she didn’t have the same misunderstandings and no I don’t need to read some 16th century theologian to help me through understanding questions that weren’t even asked back then like:
1) what was Judaism like in the 1st century?
2) how does the resurrection relate to our justification?
3) what is the significance of Jesus’ own personal faith?
You can ignore these questions and quote Calvin when convenient, but that still doesn’t answer the questions or deal with the text and my current question that seems to be ignored at this point is:
4) Exactly what is ” the gospel” in the Gospels?
If you want to read something, start with Matthew and answer that.
thomasgoodwin said,
July 6, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Matt,
Those questions were dealt with then. For example, the question of Jesus’ faith is a basic Christological question.
I also think that those responding to you ought to deal more exegetically than what has been the case.
And, for me, it’s clear that Christians are considered righteous in different ways; both forensically and demonstratively (again, justification and sanctification coming to the fore). Luke chapter 1 seems obvious, among a plethora of other places. Although, it should be kept in mind that our righteousness is like menstrual rags. Our personal, inherent righteousness doesn’t negate or trump in any way our forensic righteousness. Rather, it is the legitimate offspring of the forensic righteousness. We shouldn’t have to be uncomfortable speaking this way so long as we not lose sight of the bigger picture!
BTW, I think question 4 is something worth looking at further.
Mark
Robert K. said,
July 6, 2007 at 10:19 pm
>”Robert - why don’t you try using Dathenus’s arguments against Matt’s arguments?”
Oh, maybe it might be better if the book is actually read by people who exibit wild non-understandings of law and gospel while at the same time exibiting smug arrogance that everybody is wrong but them.
Matt (and yourself for that matter. Barlow) as well as all the FVists I’ve read are rather a bit too smug in their self-estimates of their own understanding of such subject matter to be engaged profitable. Make some effort. The subject of law and gospel is notorious for being not understood (or not even known about) in modern day Reformed and quasi-Reformed environments, so it might be best to do some study at a basic level (again, make some effort) before you start ping-ponging Dathenus’ “arguments.”
Robert K. said,
July 6, 2007 at 10:31 pm
For those who don’t know, Dathenus’ book referenced above is not a John Owen-like treatise. It’s an 80-page dialogue between the author and an English lady. She’s a good foil for Dathenus to present, in a clear and concise and simple way, the infamously delicate subject matter. One needs to play above the keys, so to speak, when elucidating law and gospel, and you just need to allow Dathenus, in this case, to guide you along. This, though: “no I don’t need to read some 16th century theologian to help me through understanding questions” is not a good approach.
And for those FVists wanting to compare my recommendation to read a work written in the 1500s to an appeal to tradition similar to what Romanists do I answer: truth actually existis, FVists. Calvinists like Dathenus had it. The Sadoleto’s of the 1500s didn’t. As brilliant as their reputations were, and as brilliant a self-estiimate of their own understanding they possessed…
Robert K. said,
July 6, 2007 at 10:49 pm
I feel so innocent when engaging FVists. I read a Dathenus, a 16th century Calvinist who, I innocently discern, had a rather lively and on-the-mark understanding of the faith, and I actually learn things from him. I am too innocent to know I’m supposed to mock such a person who is such a thing (Calvinist) from such a century (the 16th century, of all things); and that I am supposed to ask questions Dathenus and his kind were too stupid to have thought of…
I’m also too innocent to know that the biblical wisdom that there is nothing new under the sun is something I’m suppose to think is no longer true, especially regarding doctrine. Because the history of the faith since the beginning hasn’t been that there is no new heresy or anything like that…no…..
I’m too innocent! Oh, well… Maybe some day I can be really smart and write something FVists will think is impressive. Like: Ten Questions the Apostle Paul Forgot to Ask
Question 1: How do I know Gamaliel was not Jesus in disguise, in which case this is all - this ‘New Covenant’ stuff - a practical joke on me?
I’ll try to think of nine more…
Steven W said,
July 7, 2007 at 12:09 am
In addition to reading Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa, you should also consider the implications of creation ex nihilio. Adam could only find life outside of himself.
tim prussic said,
July 7, 2007 at 12:10 am
Bobby K., you’re so cute and innocent! It’s all about you, baby!
Robert K. said,
July 7, 2007 at 1:18 am
“Bobby K., you’re so cute and innocent! It’s all about you, baby!”
Well, Tim, this is what’s called projection. It’s all about Dark Mark “We will destroy you and your God” Horne, and all the other FVists whose mantra is: “Sorry, you havn’t won me over yet.”
Grover Gunn said,
July 7, 2007 at 1:52 am
I would recommend the book _God and Adam: Reformed Theology and The Creation Covenant: An Introduction of the Biblical Covenants; A Close Examination of the Covenant of Works_ by Rowlad S. Ward. It is an easy read. I just finished reading it again tonight. Yet it is filled with useful infomation and quotations. The following are relevant to this discussion:
He quotes Fisher’s Catechism about pactum merit:
Q. 32. Cound [Adam] have claimed the reward as a debt, in case he had continued in his disobedience?
A. He could have claimed it only as a pactional debt, in virtue of the covenant promise, by which God became a debtor to his own faithfulness, but not in virtue of any intrinsic merit of his obedience, Luke 17:10.
page 153
See also the Turretin quotation on page 123.
He carefully defines grace in the pre-fall context as non-redemptive love, kindness and assistance. He says that the term _grace_ was widely used in this sense in 17th century Calvinistic writers.
page 116
He discusses many possible names for the covenant of works and their significance.
page 95
He discusses the Mosaic Covenant properly viewed in terms of Christ as an administration of the covenant of grace, and improperly viewed apart from Christ as a legalistic covenant of works which can only condemn. He has relevant quotations from Turretin and Dickson.
page 138
These observations about an older Dutch conflict are very relevant:
Indeed, whereas Hoeksema viewed the covenant through election, Schilder’s approach saw election through the covenant, which risked self-assurance and legalism (’being in the church I am also of the church’). Neither position represents the older view which reckoned with the administration of the covnant of grace in a two-fold sense: baptism is grounded on God’s command and promise and all who profess the true religion together with their children are reckoned in the covanant outwardly; however, strictly speaking it is only those united to Christ by grace through faith who receive the saving benefits of the covenant.
page 186
Here is an a Brekel quotation:
Acquaintance with the covenant [of works] is of the greatest importance, for whoever errs here or denies the existence of the covenant of works will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus Christ. Such a person may very readily deny that Christ by His active obdience has merited a right to eternal life for the elect.
page 187
He has a few pages on Shepherd based on his personal communication with him. He says, “Shepherd’s thought … is underpinned by the idea that any concept of works or merit in the covenant relationship, whether with Adam, Christ or believers, is alien to Scripture and essentially self-righteous/legalistic in nature.” page 189
“Minimising the difference between the pre-fall and post-fall covenant seems to mean you get more ‘grace’ before the fall and less grace afterward.”
page 192
Grover
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
July 7, 2007 at 7:05 am
Lane, a few questions for you:
1. In 1 Cor 15, is Paul talking about the pre-fall or post-fall Adam? (Personally, I cannot agree with the way Gaffin handles the passage where he eisegetes v. 42ff trying desperately to deal with both pre- and post-fall Adam following a footnote in Vos’s “Pauline Eschatology”.)
2. Does the covenant of grace supersede the covenant of works?
Thanks,
Matty B.
In Light of the Gospel » Blog Archive » Wilkins’ Letter to His Presbytery said,
July 7, 2007 at 8:22 am
[...] [HT: Green Baggins] [...]
greenbaggins said,
July 7, 2007 at 9:14 am
Verses 42-44a refer to the post-Fall body of a dead believer, contrasted with the glorious body. This is evident from verse 35 which asks the question about the dead. Obviously only post-Fall people can have dead bodies. However, in verse 44b, Paul widens the contrast to include the pre-Fall protological body of Adam. This is conclusively proved from the fact of the quotation in verse 45, which refers to the pre-Fall body of Adam, when it became a living being, and from the houtos in verse 45, which plainly introduces the ground for believing vs. 44b. I think you are misremembering Gaffin’s exegesis, if you think that he was saying that verse 42 included the pre-Fall body. He said that the contrast widens in verse 44b. He wrote his exegesis to the translators of the NIV. That is why there is a paragraph break there in vs. 44b in the NIV. They followed his exegesis there. I agree wholeheartedly with Gaffin’s exegesis here.
I would say that in terms of how we get eternal life, the CoG absolutely supersedes the CoW. However, for people who are not in the CoG, they are still breakers of the CoW, and are still under its sanctions, just as much as they are still under its demands. See Warfield’s exegesis of Hosea 6:7, for instance.
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
July 7, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I think it far-fetched that Paul is considering both the pre- and post-fall Adam. First, because of the simple parallel: Adam/Christ. Therefore, Paul is talking about the post-fall situation vs. the post-resurrection situation. Gaffin does trace his logic to a single footnote in Vos for this.
As for my second question, I see that the entire system of the Westminster Divines begins, builds and falls with this question. But here’s a (apparent) flaw in the system: If the CoG supersedes the CoW, then you’re admitting that both covenants run parallel to one another at some level, right? Because if not, then how can Christ fulfill the superseded covenant? If we follow the Divines on this, then the CoW is continuous with the CoG. This is a problem for Klinians too. If the old is gone and the new has come, then to what extent does the old need to be fulfilled if it’s superseded? If it’s *not* superseded, then they run parallel to one another which is sort of dispensational logic. (I’m not too sure if this post makes sense, but I’d love to hear how you interact with whatever you understand.)
Robert K. said,
July 7, 2007 at 4:22 pm
MPB, if you’re asking what Jesus had to fulfill, a) successfully not eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, or b) all the law of God as given to Adam and made known on Sinai, it was the latter (which the former was represenative).
Those Mosaic laws always had a bit of Divine Irony in them (just as an aside) in that fallen man could never follow them. They were (are) a curse. Jesus could and did follow them, dotting all ‘i’s and crossing all ‘t’s.
Those laws were given to national Israel. Israel was a type of Christ. In the fulness of time Jesus incarnated, the King of Israel, pure from the bloodline of Adam, and fulfilled all of the law.
All who had faith in the coming Saviour and all who have faith in Him now are saved.
There’s only one way to be saved: works. Either your own or Jesus’. Good luck if you attempt to rely on your own.
greenbaggins said,
July 7, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Well, Matthew, how can you understand “The first man Adam became a living being” of the post-fall situation? The citation is from Genesis 2:7, which is *before* the Fall. Just because Adam and Christ are contrasted doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be the *pre*-Fall Adam which is contrasted with Christ. And the citation clinches it. For Vos, see pp. 166-169 of _The Pauline Eschatology_. By the way, you never acknowledged that you absolutely butchered the Gaffin quotation about imputation.
With regard to the CoW, no one who is merely human (because of the Fall) can fulfill the CoW after the Fall. However, Someone needs to in order for us to have the right to eternal life. “Do this and live.” It is superseded only in reference to us. Christ fulfilled it by being perfectly obedient to the terms. It’s not dispensational logic, because the CoW applies not one whit to the believers except through Christ. And the OT believers were part of the CoG. So, no dispensationalism there. Christ fulfilled the CoW so that through Him, we might participate by the CoG. The Covenant of redemption is the way that these two ideas come together (see White/Beisner in _By Faith Alone_, as well as VanDrunen/Clark in CJPM for biblical, exegetical, and systematic defense of this position).
Robert K. said,
July 7, 2007 at 5:09 pm
If you have worldly resentment towards the notion or fact of kings - or a King - you will have difficultly with Federal Theology. Seperate out the worldly associations. When God is King the Kingdom is good. And when God is King then coming under His rule is what is right. It is true liberty. Faith in that King effects the internal reorientation from rebellion (self-will) to acting from God’s will, which is our natural state, being made in the image of God. So this whole Plan, with the the creation and fall, which turns on faith, though it may seem strange, it is actually the only way we can come alive (by the Holy Spirit) and be what we were supposed to be, but not by divine fiat merely, by suffering and mortification of our vanity, and pride, and self-will, by the grace of God. We recognize the fact of our need for a Saviour, and we recognize the authority of the King. We become connected to the real life that is above us, and are freed from the bondage to darkness and death beneath us.
Initial Thoughts on Wilkins’ Answers « Reformed Musings said,
July 7, 2007 at 8:10 pm
[...] read through Steve Wilkins’ paper on the nine declarations linked in my previous post. Since Green Baggins is doing an excellent job of treating that document in detail, I will only make a few comments here [...]
Xon said,
July 7, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Lane, anything to say about my #13?
kjsulli said,
July 8, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Re: Xon #49 re: #13
“Merit” is something that is deserved. “Pactum merit” is something that is deserved by agreement or pact, as opposed to being deserved by nature. An example might be that a parent agrees to pay an allowance to a child on the basis of that child’s completing weekly chores. Although the child naturally owes obedience to his parent, yet he can claim to have earned an allowance by his completion of the assigned chores. In that sense, then, Adam would have “merited” eternal life for himself and all in him by his obedience to the commandment of God. (As it is, he merited death, both by pact and by nature.) In the same sense Christ “merited” eternal life for Himself and all in Him by His “active” obedience to the Law of God.
Does that make sense?
greenbaggins said,
July 13, 2007 at 11:05 am
Xon, pactum merit is simply an agreement that an action will be rewarded with a certain result. Pactum merit excludes any idea that the work was commensurate with the reward, either by strict merit (condign), or by merit that almost gets there, but needs a little help from God (congruent). Pactum merit simply sets up a condition whereby Adam would earn eternal life by agreement with the terms and conditions of the CoW, and by the obedience rendered to those terms and conditions. Merit does not imply condignity inherently. Merit simply means that there is a reward that fits with the obedience. In what *way* it fits is defined by the adjective that goes along with it, whether condign, congruent, or pactum. Don’t know if I can make it any plainer.
Critique of Wilkins’s Response to the 9 Declarations « Green Baggins said,
November 12, 2007 at 11:45 am
[...] 12th, 2007 at 11:45 am (Federal Vision, Heresy, Indices) Response to Declaration 1, Response to Declaration 2, part 1, Response to Declaration 2, part 2, Response to Declaration 2, [...]
Federal Vision Index « Green Baggins said,
November 12, 2007 at 11:47 am
[...] of Steve Wilkins’s Response to the 9 Declarations. Response to Declaration 1, Response to Declaration 2, part 1, Response to Declaration 2, part 2, Response to Declaration 2, [...]