Justification and Covenant
August 9, 2007 at 10:02 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)
The next section is rather oddly titled “Reformed Catholicity.” The section is about justification. Why didn’t they just say that, I wonder? The section itself is not too objectionable. However, it is not specific enough to guard against certain errors. For instance, how are they defining “works of the law?” This is a huge debate today in NT circles, and it would be nice for them to give us a definition. The Reformed position is that all works, good or bad, moral law or ceremonial law or civil law, are excluded from having any place in justification.
The denial section is very curious to me. Are they saying that it is not necessary to have a correct understanding of justification? The charitable read of this would be to say that they are saying that a correct understanding of justification is necessary but not sufficient for true faith. I would certainly agree with that. I agree that merely stating the doctrine correctly does not a Christian make. One can state it correctly, but be a demon. But who or what is the target of this denial? Or is there a target?
The next section is on the covenant of life. It is quite revealing that they are not willing to call it a covenant of works as the confession does. There are several problems with this section.
The first problem is that Adam didn’t have faith. He could see God. Faith is by definition (Hebrews 11:1) in something unseen. But the clear indication is that God talked directly with Adam face to face. Adam could hear the sound of God walking in the Garden. Adam was not justified by faith. And he certainly would not have received the eschatological body (1 Corinthians 15) by faith alone. He would have received it upon condition of perfect and personal obedience, as the confession says. This statement of the FV is obviously out of accord with WCF 7. It is also out of accord with how the Westminster divines interpreted the law (see LC 99). First point: the Westminster divines clearly saw the moral law as having been given to Adam (WCF 19.1-2). Second point: the Westminster divines clearly saw that the interpretation of the command of Genesis 1:28, the implied command of 2:15 (God would not have put the man there for a specific purpose without telling the man what that purpose was), and the explicit command of 2:16 are all subject to the same interpretive principles that the Ten Commandments have. Third point: if the moral law was given to Adam, then the eschatological body would have been to Adam upon condition of his obeying the moral law perfectly. These two statements are identical: “upon condition of perfect and personal obedience,” and “payment for service rendered.” This is pactum merit, not any kind of absolute merit or condign merit. Jason Stellman makes a great point about WCF 11’s phrase “exact justice” with regard to the typological connection to Christ’s person and work. Adam’s work was not exact justice, but Christ’s was. This statement of the FV is therefore completely contrary to the WCF:
the gift or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements.
This is an explicit denial of WCF 7.2, which says “life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” This is a denial of the Covenant of Works.
We shall now speak of Adam as being in covenant with God–the covenant of works. Acquaintance with this covenant 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. Such a person will very readily deny that Christ by His active obedience has merited a right to eternal life for the elect. This is to be observed with several parties who, becasue they err concerning the covenant of grace, also deny the covenant of works. Conversely, whoever denies the covenant of works must rightly be suspected to be in error concerning the covenant of grace. A’Brakel on the Covenant of Works
William Hill said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:11 am
Lane,
I personally think you are just paranoid about anything these guys write. You see a boogey-man lurking behind every corner of any so called “FV advocate”. I also think you have too much time on your hands. Frankly, if Wilkins or Wilson said the sky was blue you would probably challenge that somehow.
It is getting old (and I am sure opinions will vary and that suits me quite well).
greenbaggins said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:14 am
Well, that doesn’t really advance the discussion, William. How about answering some of the actual arguments? Besides, as you yourself know quite well, I have been careful (especially with Wilson) to note the places where we agree. So, I think Wilson would disagree with your assessment. There are those generalizations again. Totally false, and very unhelpful.
William Hill said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:17 am
Like I said — it is my opinion. I am not interested in advancing the discussion because there is rarely any discussion. Posturing, knit-picking and other such stuff you typically do is beyond the pale. Again, it is my opinion.
Another thing — your apparent beef is not with me so I don’t really care to feed the paranoia machine.
Sean Gerety said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:29 am
The first problem is that Adam didn’t have faith. He could see God. Faith is by definition (Hebrews 11:1) in something unseen. But the clear indication is that God talked directly with Adam face to face. Adam could hear the sound of God walking in the Garden. Adam was not justified by faith.
Not to nitpick and I don’t think it necessarily detracts from your central point concerning the covenant of works, but isn’t Adam’s seeing and hearing God metaphorical, for John 1:18 says; “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” Further, the Confession says that God is a spirit without body, parts or passions. We can say God had open and direct communication with Adam pre-fall, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that the relationship was mediated and sensate. Now, perhaps Adams pre-fall relationship with God as in the form of a theophany, but I don’t see that being the case.
BTW, belief is still necessary even if one were to “see” God (if such a thing were possible), even in the flesh. Men saw Jesus, but in order to have life they still needed to believe (have faith in) his words.
greenbaggins said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:33 am
Those are interesting points. The question of John revolves around the situation which contextualizes it. John has the post-Fall world in mind, as is fairly clear from vv. 6ff. Of course, God is a Spirit and has not a body like men. However, that does not mean that Adam couldn’t see God. Adam could see God in the same way that we will eventually see God. Adam being innocent when first created means that he stood in the presence of God. In any case, the important point is that Adam had no need to exercise faith before the Fall.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:40 am
Query: Is the faith only in the God we can’t see, or is also in his promises? For example: my children don’t have to have faith in me; I’m there, they can see and touch and hear me. But they do very often need to act in “faith” (trust) of what I say and promise. In this sense, didn’t Adam have to have faith in God’s promises (and the veracity of his warning?)
I offer this question in all sincerity.
Sean Gerety said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:45 am
The first problem is that Adam didn’t have faith.
I guess I am nitpicking.
God gave Adam specific commands which Adam understood. Adam’s insubordination by placing his wife’s desires and obeying her instead of God suggests, at least to me, a lack of belief.
As for Hill, just ignore him. That’s what I do. He basically admitted his opinions are pretty much worthless as far as this discussion goes. I would take him at his word.
Sean Gerety said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:47 am
In any case, the important point is that Adam had no need to exercise faith before the Fall.
I’m sorry, I don’t see this as following in either pre or post fall.
Sean Gerety said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:57 am
FWIW I would answer Eric’s question in the affirmative. I also like that he used faith and trust synonymously, since that’s what they are and trust isn’t some additional component. Also, is there any chance you’re using the word “faith” in some different sense than “belief”? For the record, I always thought these two words were the same, although for some strange reason I’ve met a number of people over the years who don’t think faith and belief are somehow different. Yet, as Gary Crampton recently reminds us:
I’m done nitpicking.
Sean Gerety said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:59 am
” . . . who don’t think faith and belief are somehow different.”
Should read: . . . who think faith and belief are somehow different.
Jon Peters said,
August 9, 2007 at 11:02 am
William,
Your website notes that the FV have released a “major document.” Moreover, your radio show plans to have FV advocates on to talk about the document. Yet you chide Lane for discussing it critically? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical? Or is the FV version the only one that counts?
greenbaggins said,
August 9, 2007 at 11:03 am
I would say that there is a distinction that can be made between belief and faith. The latter is broader, and involves trust, assent and knowledge, whereas the former merely involves assent and knowledge. Surely, we can say that Adam did trust his God. But the essential element of faith being in something unseen (maybe non-present would be a better way of describing this) is lacking in Adam’s situation.
Eric, I see faith as being always in a person. Of course, that involves being able to trust the person as being truthful. But the form that would take for Adam is obedience to the commands. Obedience was required. The FV statement ignores the LC 99’s interpretation of the law: every promise has a corresponding opposite threat and vice versa; every command has a corresponding opposite prohibition. This is the answer to why the commands of the Garden were attached to the promise of life, the key element missing in FV formulations. This is why the Westminster divines called the covenant a a covenant of works. It is by obedience that Adam would have come into eternal life.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 9, 2007 at 11:03 am
Thanks, Sean.
There is one sense in which belief is different than faith; when belief is a mere cognitive nod. This is the sense used in James, to paraphrase: “even the demons believe, and shudder.”
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 9, 2007 at 11:11 am
Rev. Keister,
I agree 100% with your firth three sentences in #12.
But re: your second paragraph there: Adam and Eve would only have obeyed out of faith. They disobeyed because they didn’t believe God’s promises and warning. They trusted the false promises of the serpent more than they did the sure promises of God (and they also doubted His loving character, since they thought they were lacking something that God should have given them, but that Satan now offered).
I’m sorry, but this interpretation seems overly wooded, and the criticism of the FV on this point seems - here’s that word again - the epitome of nit-picking.
greenbaggins said,
August 9, 2007 at 11:27 am
But why do the FV guys deny that works is the principle by which Adam would have obtained eternal life? That is the problem with the FV position, and it is by no means small.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 9, 2007 at 11:39 am
I can’t speak for them, but my observation of Wilson’s interaction on this subject seems to be that everything is of grace. Adam’s life and breath was a gift of God, as was everything else. Plus, and my speculation here, he was given the Tree of Life already; his life and needs for it were provided for by God. His only choice was to forfeit it through disobedience, eating the forbidden fruit. And, as said, his obedience there, in not eating thereof, would have had to flow from his belief that God’s warning was true, and faith that God’s promises were good and sufficient.
greenbaggins said,
August 9, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Then was Christ’s acquiring of salvation for us of grace or of works?
Sean Gerety said,
August 9, 2007 at 12:10 pm
There is one sense in which belief is different than faith; when belief is a mere cognitive nod.
You had me then you lost me Eric.
I know of no place in Scripture where pistis or one of its forms cannot be translated as either faith or belief, even James 2:18. James’ point is that it is not enough to believe or have faith in God per say or even that God is one, for the demons do so as well and tremble. Demons are monotheists, but so what, are there no monotheists in Hell? Romanists and even Muslims believe God is one too, but they don’t believe the gospel. So, I would say the difference lies in the propositions believed and not in some psychological and nebulous addition to belief which saves.
Also, I don’t think there is any difference between believing in a person and believing what they say, but I don’t want to distract any more from Lane’s other points — which was the focus of his blog.
Anyway, and for the record, I very much subscribe to Gordon Clark’s arguments concerning the nature of faith (or belief, you chose
as he advanced in Faith and Saving Faith. Reading it years ago was like Roter-Rooter for the mind. Cleared a lot of cobwebs in my mind and those that invariably clutter these discussions. Highly recommended — especially in the context of the Federal Vision debate it is essential.
johnboy said,
August 9, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Mr. Hill: If I may, I would suggest that you meant “Nit-Picking.” It’s been my experience that picking a knit will often unravel the sweater.
Dean Bekkering said,
August 9, 2007 at 12:23 pm
All
Now we are getting to a part of the FV that I need help with.
This is hard to explain so be patient.
Did Adam NEED faith? If he did need faith then what was the object of that faith (First or Second person of the trinity)? Was this a justifying faith (simple, sole, passive, and extraspective)? Or was this a sanctifying faith or obedient faith?
I believe if it is expressed this way then most will agree it was merely an obedient faith.
Now if we are going to criticize the FV on the one hand of mixing justifying and obedient faith then how do we get around this problem here? Did his obedient faith GET or EARN Adam anything?
Where is it found in the Bible that if he obeyed long enough in the garden he would inherit Heaven? It is my understanding that if he obeyed for a billion years he would have still been required to obey forever.
To me this is the distinction between the First and Second Adam. Adam could not obey for however long it was, but the Second Adam obeyed for me. I now have more assurance now because Christ did it for me than if I was in Adam and had to keep doing.
Any help in this area would be greatly appreciated.
Dean B
Sean Gerety said,
August 9, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I can’t speak for them, but my observation of Wilson’s interaction on this subject seems to be that everything is of grace.
This has always confused me with FV men? Would it have been a matter of grace had Adam prevailed in his probation and not eaten of the forbidden fruit? I think so, but then we would all be looking to Adam as the author of our salvation which would be idolatry. Besides, it is Jesus who is the first born of many brethren which Adam is surely one. However, did not God command Adam to essentially do this and live? Adam couldn’t even do the one thing God commanded so why does the idea of grace vitiate the idea of works in the pre-fall relationship?
I don’t agree with Lane on what constitutes faith and that there is somehow a difference between faith and belief, but I completely agree with him that the FV’s rejection of the covenant of works and all that implies in their soteriolgoy is no small matter.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 9, 2007 at 12:30 pm
The distinction that the FV’ists rarely make (if ever) is this: The covenant of works was lovingly made, but legally administered.
So yes, we all agree that God didn’t “owe” Adam creation or covenant (so can we just put this to rest once and for all?), but once God condescended to Adam by way of covenant, he then administered that covenant according to justice.
So God says, “I’ll give you A if you do B and don’t do C.” The arrangement was made freely on God’s part, but it was then carried out according to the stipulated terms of the arrangement.
tim prussic said,
August 9, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Gentlemen (specifically Dean),
I’m quite interested in interacting with these questions and answers. I hope to get to it later today. I’m posting this so as not to lose sight of this string.
pduggan said,
August 9, 2007 at 2:36 pm
There’s huge numbers of solid theologians who are willing to talk about the faith and lack thereof of Adam (and Jesus!)
“John has the post-Fall world in mind, as is fairly clear from vv. 6ff.”
Well then hebrews has a post fall world in mind too, and you can’t use Hebrews definition of faith to exclude it from Adam.
greenbaggins said,
August 9, 2007 at 2:45 pm
But couldn’t you say that faith only *has* an existence in the post-Fall world?
pduggan said,
August 9, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Why do we think a “correct understanding” of justification is necessary for saving faith?
Sinclair Ferguson doesn’t seem to think so, and thinks that NT wrights claims that its NOT NECESSARY is elementary
“In an illuminating personal note Bishop Wright comments on the “vital and liberating point” which he first met in the work of the sixteenth-century Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, that one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. What strikes one as curious about this statement is that while such a discovery would indeed be liberating, one would be hard pressed to find an intelligent evangelical in the history of the church who has taught such a distorted view of the gospel.”
pduggan said,
August 9, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Does Jesus have faith in God when he responds to Satans temptations?
Yes/no?
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 2:50 pm
It would be nice if this current subject matter - the covenant of works, the two Adams, probation in the garden, etc. - were not bantered about as if there isn’t quite an ocean of biblically sound and vetted-by-time contributions by Reformed theologians to draw on. The FVists only have mocking for great theologians who don’t give them what they demand (”John Owen was on drugs when he wrote that!”), and they prefer the Alice-in-Wonderland type of environment where Leithart and Wilson et al constitute the Great Fathers of the Church. In other words, FVists can only exist in an unserious environment. Try not to accomodate them too much in this sense.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 9, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I’m wondering why anyone accomodates Robert K.? To what positive value does his constant teeth-gnashing and heart-judging really serve?
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 2:59 pm
>”Try not to accommodate them too much in this sense.”
Didn’t want Green Baggins to think I’m barking orders at him or the other Reformed Christians here. I just don’t want the FVists to draw things down into their world where they’ve got otherwise sound Christians debating the meaning of ‘is’ and making the kind of slippery concessions that occur when you play with fools for too long.
pduggan said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Hooker was clear about what he was saying too, which I’m sure Ferguson is aware of
“A Puritan preacher took him to task for this, saying that since the Romanists did not believe the doctrine of Justification by Faith, they could not be justified. Hooker replied at length in this sermon, in which (1) he sets forth the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, and agrees with his opponent that the official theology of Rome is defective on this point; (2) he defends his assertion that those who do not rightly understand the means that God has provided for our salvation may nonetheless be saved by it, in which connection he says (I quote from memory): “God is no captious sophister, eager to trip us up whenever we say amiss, but a courteous tutor, ready to amend what, in our weakness or our ignorance, we say ill, and to make the most of what we say aright.”
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:04 pm
God bless, Eric.
If you really are just an innocent trying to learn things, as you’ve said previously, you’d be less interested in attempting to cleanse the field for the FV side. But, to each his own.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Re: #31 - Now there is one Hooker that we could use a lot more of walking the streets of Reformedville! The Book of Proverbs has not word bad to say about this one; it is other types of street-walkers the writer had in mind.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Actually, RK, Greenbaggins would be doing the anti-FV side a huge favor if he didn’t put up with your hateful pontifications. You make the worst of the FV seem quite tame and harmless in comparison.
Sean Gerety said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:10 pm
But couldn’t you say that faith only *has* an existence in the post-Fall world?
I’m not sure I’m following and I certainly didn’t follow the bit about Adam not having faith prior to the fall, but I’ve explained that already.
Certainly Adam was not in need of the righteousness which is by faith prior to the Fall for he was innocent of sin, but that doesn’t mean he still didn’t need to believe God and do as he was commanded. The deception of the temptation, after all, hinged upon the idea “hasn’t God said . . . .” However, post fall all the elect believe the gospel and by faith alone are reckoned as righteous, not on account of anything in them, but on account of Christ. Now some understood the gospel more or less clearly — even today — and the shadows of the OT certainly were pointing ahead to what the Messiah would accomplish while we look back, but this doesn’t negate that Adam needed to believe God prior to the fall. Of course, we will continue to believe (have faith in) God in glory too, but immutably so.
Anyway, I’m not sure I understand your question (even if it wasn’t to me
.
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:15 pm
>”Now there is one Hooker that we could use a lot more of walking the streets of Reformedville!”
Reformed Theology is the sound doctrine of the Word of God. It’s not a ‘ville’. It’s a great ocean of truth. It’s the foundation of Creation and stories of God’s Heavenly realms.
FVism is a ‘ville’.
Sean Gerety said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Certainly Adam was not in need of the righteousness which is by faith prior to the Fall for he was innocent of sin, but that doesn’t mean he still didn’t need to believe God and do as he was commanded.
Thinking on this more, isn’t this why we call it the Covenant of Works anyway?
John said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:18 pm
The first problem is that Adam didn’t have faith. He could see God. Faith is by definition (Hebrews 11:1) in something unseen. But the clear indication is that God talked directly with Adam face to face. Adam could hear the sound of God walking in the Garden.
Lane, could you explain why seeing and hearing God would be incompatible with trusting God? After all, many people in the time before Christ saw God, though not in the sense that John 1 means. I take it that they saw the Second Person of the Trinity. For instance, Isaiah saw Yahweh enthroned (Isa. 6). Other people saw the Glory-Cloud of the Spirit. Many people in the Bible heard Yahweh’s voice speaking to them.
And yet all of them still had to have faith. That is, they still had to trust Yahweh, to entrust themselves to Him, to trust that what He said and promised is true and faithful, and so forth.
So even in the Garden, even when he saw Yahweh God bringing his bride to him or when he heard Yahweh God speaking to him, Adam would still have had to respond by trusting Him.
But more than that, Yahweh God was not with Adam at all times. Of course, He was with him in the sense that He is omnipresent. But He manifests His presence in special ways at special times. That was clearly the case in the Garden. He was specially present (perhaps as the Glory-Cloud) when He brought the Woman to Adam. But then He withdraws for the honeymoon night (Adam, too, leaves his Father and cleaves to his wife, in a sense).
We know that He withdrew and was not specially present with Adam at all times because He wasn’t present during the temptation. Rather, He came back to the Garden after Adam ate. Then Adam and the Woman heard the voice of Yahweh walking in the Garden “as the Spirit of the Day,” which probably refers to the Glory-Cloud.
So during those absences, and especially during Yahweh God’s absence when Adam was tempted, Adam would have to respond in faith, trusting his Father instead of the serpent.
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:23 pm
>”Adam would have to respond in faith, trusting his Father instead of the serpent.”
*Obeying* God’s command instead of being duped by a snake.
Ken Christian said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Lane - Heb. 11 is speaking of God’s promised blessings that have not yet been fully delivered to the faithful. What’s “unseen” are the blessings He’s promised to us. Ultimately, the author of Hebrews seems to have in mind the eschetalogical inheritance promised to all the saints. It’s THAT that is unseen in the Heb. 11 definition of faith, not God (though of course He is unseen).
Clearly Adam, assuming he was promised eschetalogical life upon perfect and personal obedience, had to exercise faith in the future existence of a blessing that was not yet his, as well as faith in the faithfulness of God to grant it to him.
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Just as Jesus *obeyed* God’s Word instead of being duped by the devil (Matt. 4).
It is written
It is written
It is written
pduggan said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Adam wasn’t duped
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:46 pm
>”Adam wasn’t duped”
That the devil went through Eve doesn’t absolve Adam from being duped. The devil was lying. When you buy the lie you are duped.
tim prussic said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Jesus obeyed God in faith. If Adam would have obeyed God, it would have had to have been in faith. Faith believes the promises of God and trembles at his threats, right? Did Jesus believe the promises of God. Youbetcha. Did Adam not tremble at the threats of God? Not enough to obey!
In the post-fall world, faith serves a peculiar and specific function of being the along instrument of justification. It is the empty hand that reaches to Christ for salvation. But the nature of faith (believing/trembling) is unchanged. Thus, faith can be faith and yet function differently depending on the one having the faith. E.g., Jesus didn’t have need of imputed righteousness, but he still had faith, as he had need to believe his Father. We fallen humans need imputed righteousness & we need to believe/tremble. All this is of faith, but faith functions in various ways.
pduggan said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:47 pm
duped = deceived
Adam wasn’t deceived
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Look at what the FVist had to do. He was presented with the strength and truth of God’s Word and he had to deflect like an undergraduate philosophy student in a dorm debate. You’re very serious.
pduggan said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I’m quoting scripture, Robert.
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“…and gave also unto her husband *with her*; and he did eat.” Yes, I know in your mind Eve must have been alone with the Serpent, but the Holy Spirit doesn’t give that impression. You probably also think the word apple is in Genesis.
pduggan said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Dupe (?), n. [F., prob. from Prov. F. dupe, dube; of unknown origin; equiv. to F. huppe hoopoe, a foolish bird, easily caught. Cf. Armor. houpérik hoopoe, a man easily deceived. Cf. also Gull, Booby.] One who has been deceived or who is easily deceived; a gull; as, the dupe of a schemer.
webster 1913
pduggan said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Jim Jordan taught me that Adam was right there with her, Robert. Before, my standard Calvinist non-fv upbringing never taught me that.
pduggan said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Robert is demonstrably wrong about the bible Nyaha nhyah!
tim prussic said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:01 pm
HAHAH… pduggan! That’s MUCH closer to the correct tone to take the ol’ bobby k.!
tim prussic said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Rest assured, however, that bobby’s read his Refored Theology without error… especially in that he’s baptistic to the core.
tim prussic said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Dean, in the hullabaloo, don’t miss post #44, it was aimed at interacting with you (and others).
John, in that Heb 11 doesn’t offer THE biblical definition of faith, you cannot use it to disprove that Adam had faith. In any event, just because Adam walked with God doesn’t mean that ALL of God and his promises were visible to him. If we understand the cov’t of works correctly, there was an implicit promise of life and glory given to Adam. Would not Adam have need of faith to “see” the unfulfilled promise?
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:12 pm
>”Jim Jordan taught me that Adam was right there with her, Robert. Before, my standard Calvinist non-fv upbringing never taught me that.”
Calvinists never were confronted with nonsense that turns on questions as to whether Adam was there with her or whether or not they’d eaten of the Tree of Life yet. For the former we have something called the New Testament to illuminate that episode in the Garden. Matthew 4. Adam didn’t protect his bride from the Serpent, Jesus did protect his Bride from the Serpent/Devil. The first and Second Adam. Parallel episodes. Learn from it.
John said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Tim, when you say, “John…” are you addressing me? I don’t recognize your comments as having anything to do with what I wrote in # 38, so I suspect you’re responding to someone else, someone with another name.
pduggan said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:15 pm
irrelevant comment robert.
You were still wrong
stewart said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Robert, care to respond to post #49?
Mark T. said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Eric,
I can’t say that I particularly appreciate the tone of Robert K’s posts, however, an objective reading of their content, when compared with the content of those whom he criticizes, demonstrates that he is less shrill than Mark Horne, Jeff Meyers, and Jim Jordan and certainly more honest than all of them.
I think that he nailed it when he wrote, “they prefer the Alice-in-Wonderland type of environment where Leithart and Wilson et al constitute the Great Fathers of the Church,” and I would only add that Wilson and his devotees appear completely lost in an alternate universe of their own making, where reality is a fantasy and their utterances — no matter how deceptive or absurd — compose the very oracles of God, which change with regularity whenever someone points out another inconsistency in their position.
If these men had the courage to live by their convictions, they would repent of their false doctrine and stop troubling the Church with their incessant whining. But alas, they press forward prosecuting their high-church doctrine because they insist that the brethren who comprise “Mother Church” don’t understand them or else misrepresent them. Either way, the bottom line is that they hold their mother in contempt and therefore their “works” are inconsistent with their doctrine, which is no small irony when you remember that they place such strong emphasis on “works.”
Please, gentlemen, show us your faith by your works.
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:19 pm
>”Robert, care to respond to post #49?”
Post numbers on this blog are not reliable. Do you mean the comment with what looks like a dictionary definition of dupe? What’s to respond to?
tim prussic said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:20 pm
John, I now see that you were quoting Pastor Lane. Sorry. I’m sure you’ve been confused with less savory figures than him!
Pastor Lane, please see my comment to John in #54 - as it is actually directed at you!
Sheesh… tough to keep it straight around here.
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:20 pm
>”irrelevant comment robert.”
This is the ‘just say anything’ tactic FVists reserve for themselves when confronted with the Word of God.
tim prussic said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:22 pm
But aren’t you just saying anything in post #61, bobbles?
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:24 pm
>”But aren’t you just saying anything in post #61, bobbles?”
No, it’s backed up by my previous comment which currently is #55.
By the way, were you abused on the playground?
John said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Tim, I used italics for Lane’s words and then responded to him in normal print. I should have made that clearer. Sorry for the confusion.
stewart said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I bet Robert has trouble sleeping at night.
Dean Bekkering said,
August 9, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Tim
Thank you for responding.
Jesus obeyed God.
In my head I bring everything back to the CORedemption. In a sense God the Son believed the promise God the Father made to Son of God. However, they shared the same essence, and Jesus lived before the face of God at all times.
Pure fear does not true faith, but the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (an aspect of faith).
Belief is the “response of faith” not faith itself. Faith is an act and the response of that act of God is belief.
Jesus needed to submit to and obey His Father. If I bring it back to the COR then it is hard for me to think that God the Father would play a trick on Jesus while he was on earth.
“I and My Father are One.” How could He not believe in His Father? Maybe you think I am stretching Jesus’ two natures, but I believe I am joining the God/man aspect.
Please do not give up on me. I really want to understand this aspect and am not being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.
Dean B
tim prussic said,
August 9, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Not giving up for a second, Dean. But I do wanna pause to tease the bobberino for a second.
bobble head, I may have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous 3rd graders, but I don’t see how it pertains. Are you saying that teasing on the monkey bars leads to suseptability to the wiles of Satan in the form of the Federal Vision? If so, there’d be a whole lot more Fish Fridays!
Back to Dave. I agree that it all ties in with the COR. I don’t know that I’d wanna talk about faith in the intra-Trinitarian covenant, but I certainly would insist on it as regards the incarnate Son. He, as a man, walked in faith and relied upon the power of the Spirit to obey his Father.
I’m not quite so sure about the terms you’re using and their respective defs. At a very basic level, I think of faith as simply believing God, that is, taking him at his word. Can we start there and build?
If so, Adam, Jesus, and I all need(ed) to believe God - that is, we all need(ed) faith. Adam and Jesus didn’t need it to be saved from sin, but I do. So, we have different applications and funtions of faith. Whaddya say?
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Robert, you’re the one who claimed the exact opposite of what the Word claims.
You claimed Adam was deceived.
Irrelevant deflecting bluster, again
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Lane said something once about how he doesn’t allow anyonymous comments, when “carol” posted.
Robert K seems to be about anonymous as they come.
Am I to assume Lane know who Robert K is, and this ground has already been covered?
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:07 pm
This is what I said at the time, Wilsonite. You deflect. Satan jobbed Adam. Satan had a tactic, it worked. Adam fell. He didn’t obey the command of God. He failed to obey the command of God. Jesus didn’t fail, Jesus obeyed the command of God (”It is written, it is written, it is written” just to burn it into you). Yes, Jesus didn’t fail to obey God (which seems to anger you Wilsonites).
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:08 pm
>”Lane said something once about how he doesn’t allow anyonymous comments, when “carol” posted. Robert K seems to be about anonymous as they come.
Am I to assume Lane know who Robert K is, and this ground has already been covered?”
Wilsonites. Amongst everything else about them they have the souls of hall monitors.
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Is your use of “jobbed” a retraction of “duped”?
or are you still maintaining, contra scripture, that Adam was deceived?
tim prussic said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:09 pm
pduggie, quit takin’ that guy so seriously. he takes himself seriously enough for 18 people. he doesn’t seem to realize that he damages his own cause just about everytime he posts on this blog.
the unfortunate thing is that he thinks he champions the Reformed Faith, but his attitude is what drives people away from the truth of the Reformed Faith. “If Calvinists are like that, why in the world would anyone want to …” Thus, I’d sure like to see some non-FV guys work with him to tone him down to reasonability.
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I love how Jesus trusted his Father completely, and was not deceived by Satan lies, nor did he rebel against his father. His faithful obedience qualified him as our savior.
Adam, of course, rebelled against his father to follow satan, with full knowledge that he was behaving wickedly. He had no trust or faith in God, and his disobedience condemned him.
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:12 pm
They have to know who he is to work on him
That’s why I wonder what his pastor thinks.
If he has one.
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Satan deceived Eve as a tactic. His objective was to cause Adam to fall. It was Adam’s sin that caused the fall, not Eve’s deception. You were confronted with the fact that Adam failed to *obey* the command of God, so you said “Eve was the one that was deceived, hee hee hee…” You deflected the power of the Word of God confronting you. You have to do this every time you are confronted by the Word of God. You wouldn’t be a Wilsonite is you didn’t do this.
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:16 pm
>the unfortunate thing is that he thinks he champions the Reformed Faith, but his attitude is what drives people away from the truth of the Reformed Faith. “If Calvinists are like that, why in the world would anyone want to …”
Hm. This is hardly how God’s own approach the faith. God’s own don’t judge the faith and God’s truth (sound biblical doctrine) by the actions of humans. That is something atheists and the generally still unregenerate do.
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:16 pm
You said, and have not retracted, that Adam was deceived.
Do you think Adam was deceived by Satan?
Adam disobeyed God, but was not deceived into so doing.
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:18 pm
While pduggie and tim continue their hall monitor duties…
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:25 pm
As Calvin said:
‘Adam was not deceived, but the woman.’ (1 Timothy 2:14.)
“But Paul in that place, as he is teaching that the origin of evil was from the woman, only speaks comparatively. Indeed, it was not only for the sake of complying with the wishes of his wife, that he transgressed the law laid down for him; but being drawn by her into fatal ambition, he became partaker of the same defection with her. And truly Paul elsewhere states that sin came not by the woman, but by Adam himself, (Romans 5:12.) Then, the reproof which soon afterwards follows ‘Behold, Adam is as one of us,’ clearly proves that he also foolishly coveted more than was lawful, and gave greater credit to the flatteries of the devil than to the sacred word of God.”
“gave greater credit” to the “flatteries” of the devil.
Your problem is not was Adam deceived. Your problem, Wilsonite, is proving biblically that Adam didn’t disobey the command of God. This you can’t do. And your Wilsonite doctrine also leads you into refusing to see Matthew 4 as a parallel episode the Holy Spirit gives shining light on what occurred in the garden. Go back up this thread and read again. Don’t pretend if it’s lost in the archives it was never stated or you were never confronted by the power of the Word of God. Come on now, Wilsonites, less hall monitoring, more honesty.
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:25 pm
You don’t like to admit you ever get anything wrong, do you, Robert
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:27 pm
It was a terrible thing that Adam disobeyed God’s command.
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:28 pm
And a great thing that Jesus faith in God led him to obey.
He is our representative and example in this
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:28 pm
By the way, would you rather be called Wilsonites or Muscovites? I just assume you’d rather be called Wilsonites since putting the fear and reverence of man above the fear and revernence of God is part of your Wilsonian theology…
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Jordanites. I’ve read like 1 Wilson book
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I’m sure you’ll call us whatever you like though, since you have no regard for the images of God
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Is Calvin wrong too?
[‘Adam was not deceived, but the woman.’ (1 Timothy 2:14.)
“But Paul in that place, as he is teaching that the origin of evil was from the woman, only speaks comparatively. Indeed, it was not only for the sake of complying with the wishes of his wife, that he transgressed the law laid down for him; but being drawn by her into fatal ambition, he became partaker of the same defection with her.] - Calvin
“it was not only for the sake of complying with the wishes of his wife”
“he became partaker of the same defection with her”
What was that?
“[he] gave greater credit to the flatteries of the devil than to the sacred word of God.”
How could that be? How could Adam do such a thing, giving geater credit to the words of the devil than to the Words of God?
But the bottom line is Adam did not *obey* the command of God. The Covenant of Works was broken. (And, pssst, God knew it would be all along…it was kind of part of His plan. The overall Covenant of Redemption. Which is not the plan that says Doug Wilson will engage in Constantinian mass baptisms with guns on his belt hold a southern flag while certain sons of the south polish his shoes…
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:45 pm
It is a curious thing that Calvin wants to make sure that he discounts the express word there. I couldn’t speculate as to his motivation.
Calvin gets things wrong sometimes, certainly.
He accuses some of david’s inspired Psalms for sinful emotions, for instance.
But Adam definitely did not obey God’s command.
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:47 pm
CREC has a wonderful ring to it too, doesn’t it?
But these recent complaints about being tagged with “Federal Vision” and how it hamstrings your campaign…
It is God that marks you. You don’t have much say in it…
It’s like muslims saying “How did those moons get on our flags and mosques?” Well, you worship a 7th century moon god, Ahkmed. So God marks you despite yourself.
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I’m in the PCA, Tenth Prebsyterian Church, philadelphia.
Taught a whole Sunday school class on Genesis 1-3. Lane was there for lots of it
Dean Bekkering said,
August 9, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Tim
I am not really too concerned about the term faith except to point to the fact that Adam and Jesus faith was substantially different if we are going to use the term. I should not have begun my initial post the way I did.
My issue is how to understand the concept of Adam meriting in the COW. I understand it is covenantal merit. However, the idea that if Adam was faith(ful) then he would get eternal life is still strange.
Maybe my problem is that I want to prevent anyone from drawing a parallel between Adam and anyone else. Specifically, if Adam could merit eternal life by being faith(ful) and obedient then what is really wrong with say that I could merit eternal life in some sense if I am faith(ful) and obedient. I strongly prefer the term COLife rather than COW to help avoid any confusion.
Secondly, I do not understand how the concept of a probation ever entered the equation. What proof text is used or what argument is used to get me there?
Dean B
kjsulli said,
August 9, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Pr. Lane,
It’s difficult for me to conceive how Adam could have operated without faith even prior to the Fall. Faith, using those classic Latin terms, consists of notitia (understanding of the truth), assensus (assent to the truth), and fiducia (trust in the truth). For Adam to really obey God, he would have to have understood, assented to, and trusted God’s command. That he didn’t obey demonstrates his lack of faith.
What would you do with Abraham who heard God’s voice? He is said to have had faith in God because he trusted God’s promise to him.
The real problem is not that faith didn’t exist prior to the Fall, but that faith was not the instrument by which the promise of life was appropriated. That instrument was Adam’s personal and perpetual obedience. The difference after the Fall is that the promise of life is appropriated through faith, specifically, trusting the promise of God to be our righteousness in Christ Jesus. That is where the FV seems to go off track, wanting to incorporate obedience into faith. It is NOT by our “faithfulness” that we are justified. It is the faithfulness of Jesus that is credited to us when we believe in Him—THAT is how we are justified.
kjsulli said,
August 9, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Dean, re: 92,
Specifically, if Adam could merit eternal life by being faith(ful) and obedient then what is really wrong with say that I could merit eternal life in some sense if I am faith(ful) and obedient.
What is wrong is that you cannot remain faithful and obedient because you are a sinner. Adam did not have that problem until he sinned. Had he continued in obedience, he would undoubtedly have gone on living indefinitely, whether or not you subscribe to the notion of a probationery period. Death was the result only of disobedience.
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 8:25 pm
>”Specifically, if Adam could merit eternal life by being faith(ful) and obedient then what is really wrong with say that I could merit eternal life in some sense if I am faith(ful) and obedient. I strongly prefer the term COLife rather than COW to help avoid any confusion.”
Adam in the Garden was not a fallen human being. He was “able to sin, able to not sin.” Fallen man is: “able to sin, unable to not sin.”
>”Secondly, I do not understand how the concept of a probation ever entered the equation. What proof text is used or what argument is used to get me there?”
First, the fact that Adam was not in a state of glorification. An act of God is needed to put a person in a state of glorification. And eschatological act of God. Adam was, in the Garden, as stated above, still able to sin. Glorified man is unable to sin. Proof text for probation is 3:22-24. FVists are hyper to say Adam had already eaten of the Tree of Life, or could have, or whatever, but these verses suggest rather strongly that he couldn’t yet eat of the Tree of Life, and Revelation tells us of the nature of that Tree and the eschatological necessity that exists to reach it.
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Is God putting Adam in a state of glorification an act of God’s free grace? or of something else?
“Robert”, you don’t care a fig (heh) what FV men have said about the tree of life, because you characterize it wrongly.
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 8:52 pm
>”Is God putting Adam in a state of glorification an act of God’s free grace? or of something else?”
You all have been round the merry-go-round with Green Baggins on this one, and I don’t care to indulge you for another round. Suffice to say unmerited grace for sinners (fallen man) is what grace is for all intents and purposes of elucidating the plan of God. The grace you allude to in your sentence above could just as well connect to the fact that God didn’t create Adam a four-legged beast of some kind. ‘
The WCF uses the word “condescended.” Or condescends. God condescends to the level of man to make the Covenant of Works to begin with, and to give man not only life but the possibility of glorification.
Don’t disparage God’s covenant with Adam or pretend it doesn’t exist. That is not good form for a created being vis-a-vis the works of his Creator who has spoken to you rather clearly. And anyway, the WCF, as Wilson has stated, will “have to be changed” if you want to say you hold to it and you refuse to recognize the Covenant of Works. But you don’t hold to the WCF and the truth of God’s Word and plan it defines anyway, do you? You want to change it. Defile it. Make it into nothing. Then you can say you’ve defeated God and His Plan. Yes, sinners in rebellion to God are that irrational.
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Man doesn’t gain a possibility of self-glorification via works.
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 9:18 pm
>”Is God putting Adam in a state of glorification an act of God’s free grace? or of something else?”
FVists are forced to become pious fainters when arguing away the Covenant of Works. “Well, sir, I just don’t believe man can ever do anything other than it being solely by the gracious gift of God. I just find is too painfully hard to ever think I or any created being could merit anything based on our little ol’ effort. Ah am about to faint right now just thinkin’ ’bout it, sir. It just so grieves my sensibilities to think that I or anyone could merit anything based on anything other than God’s free grace and his freely giving me ability to do what I do even though I don’t do it but mah glorious God does it in me and freely by his free grace, sir.”
You’re not even an individual?
“No, sir, I could never think of myself as anything other than a mere cell in a corporate visible body of Christ. I don’t even have a brain, sir. I’m convinced of that.”
Yet you say justification is by ‘faithfulness’?
“Well…”
Faith and works, works achieving ‘final’ justification?
“Well, sir… Just a minute… OK, cameras off. Sound off. We’re finished here. You fear me because I represent to you the fact the Satan will persevere and destroy your God. Ah! I’m out of the closet! Are you shaking? Of course you are. Because you fear not only my power but my intellect. I can make you shiver uncontrollably just by staring at you! Ah, that such individuals exist! Yes, we do, and we will soon rule you. Oh, but don’t despair, it can only be the best thing for you!”
OK, Doug, maybe you’d better hit the road. Stop by a pharmacy on your way home maybe…
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 9:20 pm
>Man doesn’t gain a possibility of self-glorification via works.
Fallen man does (glorification) via Jesus’ works.
Adam could have. Adam was not a fallen man when he was in the Garden. Own a basic Reformed systematic, do you?
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Since Jesus did not glorify himself, I doubt adam was to glorify himself.
Dave H said,
August 9, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Robert K
Okay, so if I’m following your 99 post correctly, it’s like:
I am he as you are he as you are me
and we are all together
See how they run like pigs from a gun
see how they fly
I’m crying
Sitting on a cornflake
Waiting for the van to come
I am the eggman
they are the eggmen
I am the walrus
Goo goo g’ joob
Robert K. said,
August 9, 2007 at 9:46 pm
>”Since Jesus did not glorify himself, I doubt adam was to glorify himself.”
I’m going to speak directly to the audience now. See what this FVist is doing. He’s using ‘glorify’ in different ways. He wants you to see the word ‘glorify’ in his sentence and think God’s eschatological act of glorification of his elect (as the thread has been using the word), when that word in his sentence actually is being used in its meaning ‘to honor, extol’. In the case of his sentence: ‘to self honor and self extol’. FVists, even the lower ranks, are sophists fueled by the spirit of disobedience. I would go so far to say pduggie is not even aware of his sophistical ruse here, but the fact that he is playing in the arena of FVism and is willfully playing with fire, so to speak, and allowing himself to be influenced by the leaders of FVism, he is responsible nonetheless.
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Jesus didn’t grant himself his own resurrection either. The eschatological glory which he received was an inheritance from the Father.
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:47 pm
you’re boring, robert
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:50 pm
and thats not even coherent. Those aren’t “different” ways. God honors and extolls his elect by granting them the honor of co-heir with Christ, whom he honored as their covenant head. We receive glorification as a gift from Christ, who received it as an inheritance in response to his perfect obedience.
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Jesus, name above all names,
wonderful savior,
mighty God!
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:53 pm
God the Lord is known in Judah!
great his name in israel.
His pavilion is in salem his abode on zion hill
There he brake the bow and arrow
Bade the sword and shield be still!
pduggie said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,
being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form, he humbled himself by
becoming obedient to the point of death,
even death on a cross.
Footnotes:
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 10, 2007 at 3:43 am
Rev. Keister,
You said “The first problem is that Adam didn’t have faith. He could see God. Faith is by definition (Hebrews 11:1) in something unseen. But the clear indication is that God talked directly with Adam face to face. Adam could hear the sound of God walking in the Garden.”
Did Moses have faith? Ex. 33:11: “So the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” Num 12:8 “I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant Moses?”
Jesus said that all who had seen Him had seen the Father and Paul says of Jesus, “In Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
But faith was still necessary of all those who saw Jesus right?
Blessings,
Mahaffey
kjsulli said,
August 10, 2007 at 7:35 am
pduggie, re: 96, 98, & 101,
Adam wasn’t ever going to glorify himself. Glorification is an act of God. But in the Adamic covenant (i.e., the Covenant of Works), life was the reward for obedience, so if Adam was to be glorified, it was not by God’s “free grace.” Nor was Jesus’ glorification an act of “free grace.” Jesus was glorified because He was righteous, having obeyed the Father personally and perfectly where Adam didn’t. Of all men, Jesus never needed “free grace”!
pduggie said,
August 10, 2007 at 7:46 am
111: But paul make a great deal about how being saved by free grace excludes boasting. If the glory that Christ receives and Adam was to have received would also exclude boasting, what’s actually going on in Paul’s distinction?
Sean Gerety said,
August 10, 2007 at 7:52 am
But faith was still necessary of all those who saw Jesus right?
I realize most of the subsequent fallout above has detracted from Lane’s main point (I take responsibility for my part - even though the role of faith pre and post fall is worthy of some discussion).
As I see it the problem with the FV is simply this:
Pre-fall Adam was required to believe God and obey His command to not eat of the fruit of a particular tree. Adam’s insubordination plunged all mankind into sin and death. This is what Adam merited for us all. From that point on man could do nothing to regain his relationship with God on account of sin. The law was given to further show us not our ability, but our inability. The Mosaic covenant was pedagogical, but FV men (not to mention Jews, Catholics and every other non-Christian) simply have not learned the lesson. Man needed a mediator. Man needs Jesus Christ.
Gal 4:4,5 But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
The real offense of the FV men is that they deny the finished work of the Mediator. They deny the covenant of works and that Adam’s disobedience merited us only death, and they deny the covenant of Grace because they deny that Christ’s work alone merited life for those He died, the elect alone.
These false teachers say that OUR faithful obedience is necessary for us to be justified before God on the last day. These men may say that justification is by faith alone and that works done by faith are a matter of grace not merit. But, as long as works — any works — are required in justification — first or final (as if man needs to be justified twice) — they are denying by their words and actions that Chris’s finished work alone accomplished and merited what we could not.
Only a fool (and that includes more than a few PCA pastors some of them posting here) can fail to understand what these men are teaching. As Doug Wilson said; “breaking covenant [of Grace] occurs because of unbelief, lack of faith, and because of lack of good works.” Therefore it follows by good and necessary consequence, that fulfilling the covenant of Grace occurs by faith and good works.
kjsulli said,
August 10, 2007 at 8:07 am
pduggie, re: 112,
Read my comment in 111 again. Neither unfallen Adam nor Christ were recipients of “free grace.” If God had glorified Adam, it would be because Adam had met the terms of the Covenant of Works. Christ was glorified because He met the terms which Adam failed. Believers will be glorified because He met the terms which Adam failed.
jared said,
August 10, 2007 at 10:23 am
kjsulli,
If Adam had met the terms of the Covenant of Works, it would have been by faith alone in the word and promise(s) of God.
kjsulli said,
August 10, 2007 at 1:18 pm
jared, re: 115,
That is not true. His meeting the terms of the Covenant of Works was by his obedience. Now of course, as I said in 93 above, true obedience on Adam’s part could only result from faith, and Adam failed in obedience because he failed in faith. But the fact of the matter is that the reward of life was appropriated by obedience, not by faith. This is the fundamental difference between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, and little wonder the Federal Vision is accused of confusing faith and works with statements like yours and pduggie’s.
The Covenant of Grace begins with the foundation that Christ has fulfilled the Covenant of Works as federal Head of the elect. So, when the elect are united to Him in faith, trusting in God to be their righteousness through Jesus, His obedience is imputed to them. The terms of the Covenant of Grace are already met in Christ.
Now God’s justice has not changed. He still requires perfect, personal obedience. But it is Christ’s obedience that is ours–through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.
Let us wonder; grace and justice
Join and point to mercy’s store;
When through grace in Christ our trust is,
Justice smiles and asks no more:
He Who washed us with His blood
Has secured our way to God.
Robert K. said,
August 10, 2007 at 1:29 pm
FVists followers (their leaders know better but are dishonest) have a fundamental inability to see the difference in states between unfallen Adam, fallen man, regenerated man, and glorified man. Not to mention the difference in terms of innocence between the first and second Adam and fallen man. Argue with them and you are arguing with fifth graders who are certain - and will tell you over and over - that World War II occurred in the 19th century.
David Gadbois said,
August 10, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Lane asked “. But who or what is the target of this denial? Or is there a target?”
I think I know. That is, FV wants us to believe that Romanists and others who deny sola fide can have both a credible profession of faith and saving faith itself, and so are issuing these denials against TRs who would make sola fide a litmus test in determining the credibility of someone’s profession.
It is, of course, a bit of a straw man they put forward. The issue is not whether someone self-consciously and explicitly articulates the doctrine of sola fide, but whether they PRACTICE it - if they actually trust Jesus Christ to the exclusion of any of their works.
But the obvious point is this - if someone denies the doctrine then it is fair to say that they probably don’t practice the doctrine.
tim prussic said,
August 10, 2007 at 2:16 pm
bobbly, #117 was even more worthless than usual.
David, I think your analysis is pretty close to spot on. I think that FV folks want to maintain that justification is by faith alone, not belief in faith alone. That is true. If, however, in denying sola fide intellectually causes them to trust in Christ *plus* something else - then we have a practial denial of Christ and not just an intellectual denial of the doctrine of sola fide. However, I don’t think it’s necessary intellectually to affirm a notion of sola fide to embrace Christ sola fide. I don’t want that to be taken as though I don’t think an intellectual grasp of sola fide isn’t important, as I do; I think it’s very important. I don’t think one can have any true assurance of salvation without it. How could they?
Robert K. said,
August 10, 2007 at 2:21 pm
>”#117 was even more worthless than usual.”
Translation: “I learned something new. That angers me. Because my intellect is superiour to those attempting to teach me.”
jared said,
August 10, 2007 at 3:19 pm
kjsulli,
Thanks for the reply. I can forgive the inconsistency but I should point out a few things. You say:
That is not true. His meeting the terms of the Covenant of Works was by his obedience. Now of course, as I said in 93 above, true obedience on Adam’s part could only result from faith, and Adam failed in obedience because he failed in faith.
Adam, in fact, didn’t meet the terms of the covenant at all (but I’m sure you know that). I said, “If Adam had met the terms of the Covenant of Works, it would have been by faith alone in the word and promise(s) of God.” Let me get this straight, you say Adam’s obedience could “only result from faith” and Adam’s failure to obey was “because he failed in faith.” But, somehow Adam’s meeting of the terms would have been by his obedience? What you are saying is simply the converse of what I said. I certainly have no problem with calling the covenant beteen Adam and God a covenant of works, but I do have a problem when someone wants to say that Adam could have obeyed apart from grace and faith. You, here, are essentially agreeing with me. The difference is you are putting the emphasis on what was required of Adam (i.e. obedience) rather than how he would have gone about accomplishing it (i.e. faith and grace). In other words, Adam would have received his reward the same way that we receive ours. The difference is that Adam could have done it himself (by grace through faith) and we have it imputed to us by Someone who did it for us (by grace through faith). The difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace is one of ability on the part of man. In the CoW man can do it, in the CoG is must be done for him. There is not, however, complete discontinuity between these two covenants (in a similar vein between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant); we know that Adam’s potential justification would have (as you have said here) been by faith and our justification is by faith. Adam could provide his own obedience and we needed obedience imputed to us, hence CoW and CoG. No?
A. Dollahite said,
August 10, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Jared and kjsulli,
I think your current discussion illustrates that Wilson was on to something when he wrote the following:
jared said,
August 10, 2007 at 4:18 pm
A. Dollahite,
Pretty much, yeah. I suppose that’s what’s nice about being (mostly) “on the fence”; you get to see the best of both worlds.
Vern Crisler said,
August 10, 2007 at 4:38 pm
#121
Jared said: “I do have a problem when someone wants to say that Adam could have obeyed apart from grace and faith.”
This just goes to show how much confusion FV has introduced into Reformed theology.
Vern
A. Dollahite said,
August 10, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Vern,
How do you propose Adam would have obeyed apart from what Jared suggests?
kjsulli said,
August 10, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Jared, re: 121,
The difference is you are putting the emphasis on what was required of Adam (i.e. obedience) rather than how he would have gone about accomplishing it (i.e. faith and grace). In other words, Adam would have received his reward the same way that we receive ours.
No, he would have received his reward by obedience, not by faith. You equivocate when you say that if Adam had met the terms, it “would have been by faith alone in the word and promise(s) of God.” No, not by “faith alone.” Likewise, you equivocate (and put words in my mouth) when you say, “we know that Adam’s potential justification would have (as you have said here) been by faith and our justification is by faith.”
The Covenant of Works is NOT sola fide, neither was it sola gratia; to assert otherwise is pure equivocation. Faith was NOT the instrument, obedience was. It is not a matter of “emphasis.” Unfallen Adam neither had nor required any mediator, and he was not a recipient of saving grace. Only his own obedience could have justified him before God. In the same way Christ required no mediator and was not a recipient of saving grace. His obedience justified Him before God, and His obedience justifies us before God. We, having no ability to be justified before God by our obedience, are saved by grace alone through faith alone.
jared said,
August 10, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Vern,
How else would Adam have obeyed? Without faith and without obedience?
A. Dollahite said,
August 10, 2007 at 4:54 pm
kjsulli,
If Adam had not fallen in the Garden, would he have been obligated to express gratitude to God?
kjsulli said,
August 10, 2007 at 4:58 pm
A. Dollahite, re: 128,
Yes; but that isn’t the question.
A. Dollahite said,
August 10, 2007 at 5:00 pm
kjsulli,
Doesn’t gratitude imply a gift?
A. Dollahite said,
August 10, 2007 at 5:08 pm
kjsulli,
What’s your first name? Mine is Andy. I don’t know about you, but I prefer addressing people by their name. Unfortunately, Lane’s blogging software started to prevent me from posting as Andy Dollahite a while back, so I’ve resorted to A. Dollahite.
kjsulli said,
August 10, 2007 at