Before I Go On
April 16, 2008 at 10:58 am (Federal Vision)
Before addressing the Joint Federal Vision Profession (again), I need to answer Doug’s latest post.
The basic claim could be boiled down (hopefully without attenuation of the actual argument) to this: Rollock and several other theologians (such as the ones Steven Wedgeworth mentions) argue that Adam owed thanks to God, and that Adam’s works could not have merited eternal life. Since this is the core of what the FV wants to say about the Adamic situation, then why are they getting arrows thrown at them? Is this not within the acceptable boundaries of debate? Hopefully this is an accurate representation of Doug’s argument. He makes the point about Murray, as well.
Reformed authors such as Robert Rollock had one great enemy: the Roman Catholic Church. There were, of course, others. However, that early in the ball game, there weren’t Arminians floating around, and even the Anabaptists (which receive some attention from Calvin) were not nearly as high on the radar screen as the Romanists. From the previous sections to the one quoted, it is quite obvious that the enemy Rollock is fighting is the Papists (see pp. 31-32 of volume 1). Therefore, if the word “merit” comes into play as something rejected by Rollock, it is the term “merit” as understood by the Romanists, which means either condign or congruent merit. Pactum merit does not appear in so many terms. However, it can be inferred from Rollock’s words. In other words, the argument here is that Rollock was not directly addressing the question of whether there is an improper way to speak of merit in the case of Adam. He was rejecting merit in the sense that the Romanists wanted to use it. Here are some clear indications that Rollock would not have denied the idea of pactum merit:
The covenant of works, which may also be called a legal or natural covenant, is founded in nature, which by creation was pure and holy, and in the law of god, which in the first creation was engraven in man’s heart…he made a covenant with man, wherein he promised him eternal life, under the condition of holy and good works, which should be answerable to the holines and goodness of their creation, and conformable to his law…it could not well stand with the justice of God to make a covenant under condition of good works and perfect obedience to his law, except he had first created man pure and holy, and had engraven his law in his heart, whence those good works might proceed…the ground of the covenant of work was not Christ, nor the grace of God in Christ, but the nature of man in the first creation holy and perfect, endued also with the knowledge of the law…and so eternal life might be said to be given unto him, as justified by his works…works mere naturally good only are required as the condition of the covenant of works. So, then, by this condition, do you exclude hence faith in Christ? I do so. (pp. 34-35, emphasis added).
The conditionality of the obtaining of the promised eternal life excluded faith. Faith was not part of the instrument. Rollock even goes so far as to say that the ground of the covenant was not the work of Christ, but the works of Adam. This language parallels precisely the “ground” language of Christ’s perfect obedience in the covenant of grace. The language of pactum merit is not present in Rollock, but the idea most certainly is. Rollock is willing to say that the instrument and ground of Adam’s obtaining eternal life is that righteousness inherent in him and accomplished in obedience to the law given to him by God. That is denied by the Federal Vision. Rollock explicitly excludes faith from any kind of instrumentality in the CoW. That is also something that the FV denies. It should be noted that Rollock clearly adheres to a CoW layer to the Mosaic covenant, when he says, “repeat that covenant of works to the people of Israel” (pg. 34). There is not one aspect of this portrayal of the CoW with which TR’s would have a problem. In the light of the foregoing, Rollock’s rejection of merit in the CoW is clearly to be seen as a rejection of Adam having any kind of condign merit. But Rollock clearly adheres to condign merit in the case of Christ. He says, (the virtue of the blood of the Mediator is twofold)… “The second is, to purchase and merit a new grace and mercy of God for us” (pg. 38). So that blasts Wedgeworth’s argument that Christ did not merit eternal life for us.
Now, quoting a long list of names indicates one’s familiarity with a long list of names. But quite frankly, the positions of those divines need to be spelled out, not simply quoted in a long list of names, as if that is supposed to seal the argument. So, this is an invitation actually to consider what they wrote. Let the FV writers give us a quotation (in context, not the cherry-picking that they usually do), and let’s discuss what they wrote. Even Murray’s position is not clear. Murray is clear that the issue of Adam’s obtaining life was suspended on his obedience (pg. 49 of volume 2). His reasons for disliking the term covenant of works are not the same as the reasons the FV rejects it. Just because there are elements of God’s condescending favor does not rule out the appropriateness of the term (that is in chapter 7 of the confession already!). The concept of covenant can be there even without the term (and actually, the FV agrees with its critics against Murray that Adam was in covenant with God). This also nullifies Murray’s “redemptive” reason. For if the concept can be there without the term, then saying that the term only applies to redemptive situations simply begs the question. Murray does not say the same thing as the FV at all.
Consider also this argument: if the FV definition of “covenant” is true (as being the relationship of God and man), and Murray doesn’t want to call what Adam had with God a covenant, then doesn’t it follow that Adam had no relationship with God, according to Murray? Obviously, Murray would not agree that Adam had no relationship with God. Therefore, Murray’s definition of covenant differs drastically from the FV.
Steven W said,
April 16, 2008 at 11:42 am
So that blasts Wedgeworth’s argument that Christ did not merit eternal life for us.
Lane,
First of all, I never said that Christ “did not merit eternal life for us.” In fact, if you read my comments at Wilson’s blog, what I did say was this:
“And I think that putting the “merit” on Christ’s death is exactly right, because Christ’s death is the ultimate act of self-sacrifice (the opposite of non-Christian definitions of merit). Indeed, it is divine self-giving.
If you want to merit life, you have to first give it up.”
What I did say was regarding “active obedience merit,” and that wasn’t “my argument.” It was Rollock’s very own! He writes:
His argument is that since the breeching of the Cov. of Works, the required payment is death.
Rollock is really clear on this. He even goes on:
And finally, he tells you what he means by merit:
This really is very clear. You can make up new types of merit in an effort to have Rollock affirm the new active obedience theology, but then I can make up new merits to have Lusk affirm it too.
Rollock does hold to a “works system” covenant in Eden. That is clear. He does not ascribe merit to it because of the definitions of merit at his disposal. He does give Christ merit, however, because it is Christ’s death which merits.
On this I completely agree. Christ’s death merits, and it merits an infinite expiation, because it is a divine person who is working.
Rollock and I have points of disagreement, but not on the imputation of Christ’s obedience.
greenbaggins said,
April 16, 2008 at 11:51 am
Page numbers, Steven?
Steven W said,
April 16, 2008 at 11:53 am
I’m using A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling pg. 53-55 in The Select Works of Robert Rollock Vol. 1 (Woodrow Society 1849)
Steven W said,
April 16, 2008 at 11:55 am
And the point of listing all those names was not to say that they are all FV. Rather it was to get us to stop doing theology by “teams.”
Muller’s continuity thesis works because he casts a broad net. Check out which authors he’s citing side-by-side. Why he’ll throw in Bullinger, Vermigli, Owen, and a Brakel. There’s quite some time and distance between those fellows.
So if we are working within the continuity thesis (and we is ain’t we), then FV fits right in the middle.
Now there is the argument that the tradition narrows as it goes, but I don’t see why folks have to accept this as the best of all possible developments.
I try to be open with my points of disagreement with historical folks, as well as with FV folks. We could all stand a good dose of history, FVers, anti-FVers, and never heard of FVers.
greenbaggins said,
April 16, 2008 at 11:58 am
Thanks, Steve. I’ll get an answer to you in a bit.
rjs1 said,
April 16, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I have been defending merit, as best I can, here.
chris van allsburg said,
April 16, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Mr. Baggins,
Did you know Rollock didn’t believe in the active obedience of Christ for the imputation of righteousness to the believer?
A friend of mine and I studied that not too long ago.
Sincerely,
Chris
Ron Henzel said,
April 17, 2008 at 8:37 am
Steven,
Your first two Rollock citations in your first comment simply demonstrate that Rollock did not include active obedience of Christ in the atonement—that is to say, Christ’s active obedience were not atoning; only His death and passion were. I fail to see how this is relevant to the question of whether Christ’s active obedience is imputed to the believer in justification. Meanwhile, your third citation of Rollock actually affirms that Christ’s active obedience is imputed to us for righteousness.
The Wodrow (not Woodrow) Society’s 1841 printing of volume 2 of Rollock’s Select works is available on Google Books. In it, Rollock makes a couple of statements that seem to assume the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience to believers:
And,
For Rollock, here is what it means to be justified, or counted just, in Christ: the position of believers before God was secured not only by Christ securing the satisfaction for their sins in the atonement, but by being clothed in Christ’s righteousness.
Scott Clark has a page on “Classical Covenant Theology.” In it he cites Rollock’s statement from volume 1 that, “The covenant of God…is twofold; the first is the covenant of works; the second is the covenant of grace (Select Works 1.33-34).” And then he provides the following more extended citation:
According to Rollock, Christ fulfilled the covenant of works for us, and because of this we are clothed in His righteousness, and because of that, in addition to Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice, we have justification in Him. This all seems pretty clear to me.
Ron Henzel said,
April 17, 2008 at 8:38 am
Chris,
See my comment to Steven, above.
Andrew said,
April 17, 2008 at 11:41 am
For those still learning, what is ‘pactum merit’? I havn’t encountered the term before.
greenbaggins said,
April 17, 2008 at 11:45 am
It is an improper use of the term “merit” to mean something that doesn’t measure up to the reward offered either by kind or by degree. For instance, a father promises his son a car if the son achieves a 4.0 grade point average. If the son then does that, then he gets the car. Obviously, he could not take a 4.0 grade point average to a car dealer and request that it be payment for a car.
greenbaggins said,
April 17, 2008 at 11:46 am
P.S. “pactum” refers to the covenant. The father and the son made an agreement that if the son does this, then he gets that.
Xon said,
April 17, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Lane, I want to get clear on this before asking a follow-up question. Are you saying that in pactum merit the action DOES “measure up to the reward either by kind or by degree?” How so? Simply because the son and dad made a pact that the one would lead to the other? How is that a measruing up in “kind or degree”?
It doesn’t become a similarity in kind simply b/c they agreed that B would follow A. Nor is it a similarity of degree (I’m not even sure what that would mean in this case).
As you say, a 4.0 GPA does not normally “merit” a car. But why not? Because it does not “measure up” to a car in either kind or degree, right? So, in what sense is it “merit,” since you said it is inappropriate to use the word if such measuring up is not involved?
It seems to me that “pactum” merit should be defined as a merit where there is NO measuring up in kind or degree. Isn’t that the point? It is just an arbitrary agreement that A will lead to B, even though there is no reason in the proper nature of things why A should lead to B?
Xon said,
April 17, 2008 at 12:23 pm
And perhaps my follow-up question ended up kneaded into that previous comment…
greenbaggins said,
April 17, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Xon, I had to recheck my comment after I read your comment, and I do find, in fact, the proper negative is in place (comment 11): something that *doesn’t* measure up either in kind or degree.
Steven W said,
April 17, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Ron,
I’m not going to be able to do any better than to continue to affirm that Rollock denied that Christ’s good works are imputed to us as the meritorious ground of our justification. They serve as the ground of his death, which is the meritorious ground of our justification.
He says as much explicitly. “Christ’s passion only.”
And that’s the extent of the argument. The current interest in active obedience is quite different from even some of the Fathers of Federalism. It doesn’t make them wrong, it just means we draw the circle more widely.
Steven W said,
April 17, 2008 at 3:43 pm
*That we need to draw the circle more widely.
Xon said,
April 17, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Lane, you said that it IS an improper use of the term “merit” to mean something that DOESN’T measure up. So, if it doesn’t measure up, then that’s NOT merit.
Just justifying my misunderstanding. I understand your position now regardless of the original typo.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
April 17, 2008 at 3:50 pm
One of the points, it seems to me, that the FV critics have made (at least the WSC-influenced ones), is that if we abandon Adam’s merit in the covenant of works, we also lose Christ’s merit. But the kinds of merit are totally different anyway: Christ’s merit is not pactum, but condign, yes? This means that Christ’s merit was not the “merit” (improperly or pactum) of the covenant of works, but a merit that was obtained through some other means than Adamic obedience. So, couldn’t one dispense with “merit” in the Adamic scheme without losing the merit of Christ?
greenbaggins said,
April 17, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Xon, you are judging the definition of pactum merit on the basis of a predefined condign merit. You are saying that since pactum “merit” isn’t condign merit, therefore it cannot be merit. That isn’t logical. And it isn’t true either of Roman Catholic definitions of congruent merit, which doesn’t measure up in extent, though it does in kind. If two people agree that a certain action will produce a certain result, then if the person does that action, the result will follow as legitimately agreed upon. I think also that you are equivocating on the term “measure up.” Doe it measure up intrinsically and necessarily? Then it is condign merit. Does it measure up only extrinsically and by agreement? Then it is pactum merit. Hope this clarifies.
greenbaggins said,
April 17, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Joshua, Christ’s merit was not only condign in relation to the law (and since it was not owed), but it was also pactum, if one considers the covenant of redemption between Father and Son.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
April 17, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Sure, but the pactum saultis is not the same as the covenant with Adam, so even Christ’s pactum merit is in a different category from Adam’s. And was Christ’s merit according to the pactum salutis really “only extrinsically and by agreement”?
greenbaggins said,
April 17, 2008 at 4:38 pm
It’s difficult to navigate these waters. I would say that Christ’s merit partakes of some features of condign, and some features of pactum. On the one hand, certainly Christ’s merit in terms of the law is condign in that the law states “do this and live,” Christ did it, and we live through His resurrection (His law-keeping coming to us). The law-keeping of Christ is what is required for eternal life. Pactumly speaking, the Father and the Son agreed that what Christ did what equate the salvation of the elect. The similarity of this with Adam’s situation is that Adam and Christ were both representatives of all those who are in each (Romans 5). Their merit resulted (in the case of Christ) or would have resulted (in the case of Adam) in the entrance into the eternal glorified state of all those represented by them. But both of these things would have happened by agreement, by covenant. That being said, it is true that the pactum salutis and the CoW are not the same. However, as Scott Clark and Beisner/White have pointed out, the pactum salutis is the basis for the CoW.
Xon said,
April 17, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Wait, Lane, you’ve lost me. I thought you and I were in agreement that “pactum” merit exists where there is an arbitrary connection between work and reward, rather than a connection that properly measures up in either kind or degree? In that case, we have pactum merit. Where did I deny pactum merit? I’m not denying it; I was confused as to your definition of it b/c of the typo. So I asked for clarification. Clear?
Xon said,
April 17, 2008 at 4:43 pm
To clarify myself, I understand the Reformed definition of the three merits to be as follows:
condign–Work (or works) A measures up to reward B both in kind and in degree.
congruent–A measures up to B in kind but not in degree
pactum–A measures up to B neither in kind nor in degree
I am understanding us to be in agreement on the definitions. My initial confusion was entirely the result of your opening sentence in #11.
Xon said,
April 17, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I’m sure someone has answered this somewhere, and I’ve probably read it myself, but I don’t remember it now.
Isn’t my salvation by pactum merit, not by grace, on these definitions? God has decreed that if I trust in Jesus to do for me what I cannot do for myself, then I will be saved. I trust in Jesus, and I am saved. So I have “merited” my own salvation, pactumly. ??
greenbaggins said,
April 17, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Xon, I agree with those definitions. I don’t interpret my first sentence of 11 to be saying anything different. Maybe we should abandon the language of “measuring up,” as I think that language is rather ambiguous, especially since the whole question is how something measures up. Where we differ (and where Doug and I would also differ, it seems) is in the thanks part. Adam owed God obedience. FV and I agree. Adam received from God the ability to obey the law. FV and I agree. If Adam had obeyed, God would have owed him eternal life by pact. FV and I seem to disagree here. Would Adam have owed thanks to God for his obedience? I say Adam owed thanks to God for creating him righteous. But if Adam had obeyed God, the obedience itself is not of grace. The setup had a gracious element in it. But, as Paul notes, obedience and grace are not the same thing. Works and grace are antithetical in justification. Adam would have been justified by his own works.
greenbaggins said,
April 17, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Xon, the answer to number 26 is that faith is not a work. So, therefore, faith cannot be said to fulfill the covenant by any kind of merit, since merit applies only to works.
Xon said,
April 17, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Eehh…..I get that traditional distinction, but come on, it seems like special pleading here. Faith is a “work” in the following sense: it involves behavior I personally engage in (behavior that is only a passive reception of another’s righteousness, perhaps, but it is still I who does the passive receiving).
And I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I feel like I’m going crazy. You said this in #11:
You said it is IMPROPER to use the word “merit” if the work DOESN’T measure up to the reward. (I don’t have any problem with ‘measure up’ talk, btw). What you meant to say was “It is NOT an improper use of the term “merit”….” Right? Right??!! Please tell me I’m right.
Anyway, since we DO agree on what you were trying to say (we just disagree as to whehter you said it correctly initially), let me move on.
The problem is not with the definitions. Definitions are what they are. If we want to talk about a kind of “merit” in which case God arbitrarily (and graciously!) decrees that A will lead to B, then that’s fine. But where you lose me (and other FVers) as you recognize is when you say that THAT kind of merit precludes grace in the attaining of the reward. (or that it precludes Adam from owing God thanks for attaining the reward).
By your own admission, the connection between A and B is arbitrary, not rooted at all in the “nature of things” either in degree or in kind. Given that, I just don’t see how we can then say that if a person does A, that there is no thanks owed when God delivers B. It maketh no sense to me. I’m happy to call it “pactum merit,” but I’m not happy to say that it precludes grace/gratitude once attained.
Your own example: Dad tells son that if he gets a 4.0 GPA, Dad will buy Son a car. Son gets a GPA of 4.0. Dad now is obligated to deliver the car because of his own promise (the “obligation” or “fittingness” of the reward in connection with the work is rooted internally in the person who arbitrarily made the pact in the first place, not in the “nature of things”). But, seriously, Son doesn’t need to say “Thank you?” Plus, if you believe that Dad is all-powerful and sovereign over “everything that comes to pass,” then Dad was also the primary cause of Son getting the 4.0. So…again…Dad seems to be “crowning his own works,” as Augustine said. And this is grace, and this calls for gratitutde even though Dad made a pact that he would do it. I just don’t get where the rigid merit/grace distinction comes from.
What makes FVers like me waffle on merit is that distinction. We have no problem agreeing that God “pacted” to give Adam eternal life if Adam obeyed. And we have no problem calling that “merit,” if ALL meirt means is that A obtains B. But it’s when you add the notion that, oh by the way, merit means “no grace/gratitude” in the attaining that you lose us. If that is your understanding of “merit,” then yes, I say the Cov of Works/Life was not a system of merit at all. B/c there clearly was grace involved has Adam obeyed, and Adam clearly would have owed a big thank you for having obeyed and for having received the reward for obeying. As clearly as there is a table in front of me as I type this. Further, I find it hard to believe that any Christian from any other tradition besides our own Reformed one would be able to understand this distinction. “Huh? WHY does merit in ANY sense…A obtains B…preclude grace/gratitude from the obtaining?” When you define things that way, then and only then we balk at merit. B/c if that’s what merit is, then “merit” don’t exist for humans, dude. Ever!
Xon said,
April 17, 2008 at 5:42 pm
For finite, non-incarnations-of-the-Logos humans, that is!
greenbaggins said,
April 17, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Faith and works are antithetical in justification. This is Pauline (see especially Romans 11:6). Faith is not a work. It is God-given, so we cannot take any credit for it. That is the only sense in which it could have any merit, is if we can take credit for it. But we cannot. Therefore, I disagree with your position. Faith is not only not a work, it is always placed in direct opposition to works in Paul. To say that faith is a work is the standard Arminian interpretation of the matter, which is refuted in every single Reformed confession in existence.
I think I finally see what is giving you grief. By “improper” I mean “less formal,” not “shouldn’t be used.” It was a Turretinny use of the term.
What I mean is that the son, after having earned his right to the car by agreement, would be able to walk up to his father and say, “Dad, I have a 4.0. Let’s go car shopping,” and the father, who bound himself to the agreement, would have to say yes. This would not be ungrateful, because the son shows his love for his father by obeying the father’s command to achieve a 4.0.
Xon said,
April 17, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Actually, all the Arminians I’ve ever known sharply distinguish them. That’s how they say that they save themselves by faith, but that this doesn’t mean they are saved by works, b/c faith isn’t a work.
Just sayin’…
They say it’s all grace, even though it is their own decision to have faith, b/c faith isn’t a “work”. It’s just that little .1% sliver of effort you have to make to accept the gift Jesus has already wrapped for you and put on your door. It involves you DOING something, but that’s true on all theologies. But it does not involve you doing something that “merits” anything. It’s just accepting the present from Jesus. The works (of Jesus) are in the present.
greenbaggins said,
April 17, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Xon, what about the second paragraph of 31? Does that clear up the issue, O Beater of Dead Horse?
The official Arminian interpretation is that faith supplies the place of the works of the law so that they confuse the ground and the instrument. They make faith the ground of justification.
Xon said,
April 17, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Also, Lane, remember, I’m not disagreeing with the Pauline distinction b/w faith and works in justification. I’m disagreeing that faith is a situation in which merit is not involved, when all you said about pactum merit earlier was that it is an arbitrary decree that A will obtain B. Well faith is an “A”, even if it is not a “work.” I can accept your answer on this point, though, as it was only an aside in the first place.
Lane, I’m smiling ear to ear here. I feel like I’ve known you for a long time, and you’ve just tried to pull a fast one on some noobs b/c you didn’t know I was in the room.
This is an incredibly coy way to express your position, and it doesn’t get at the earlier disagreement you said existed between us at all. “Dad, I got a 4.0. Let’s go shopping.” I agree the son could say that, and I agree that Dad would be obligated (through his own pacted oath) to take the kid shopping. But, still, would the kid need to say “thank you?” Would it not still be grace?
Xon said,
April 17, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Yes, your use of “improper” cleared up your usage. Although I find it brings my own argument into even starker relief. You admit that pactum merit is not a “proper” form of merit? It’s sort of a conventional way of speaking, etc. And yet the entire grace/works paradigm hangs on its shoulders? No grace in obtaining a reward that was not properly merited by the work in the first place, b/c merit even in this loose improper sense of “pactum merit” precludes all such grace from the obtaining? Angels on the head of a pin, man.
Xon said,
April 17, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I know the Remonstrant position, Lane, I was just joshing you b/c, if you spend much time talking to modern day Arminian evangelicals, most of them don’t know the “official Arminain” position and their “work around” on faith is to say that it isn’t a work. I’ve heard this so many times (and I did my undergrad at a Wesleyan college, and heard it from profs there, too).
GLW Johnson said,
April 17, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Sean
Let me expand on why I wouldn’t give Robbins the time of day. Anyone who claims to be Reformed and yet portrays both Bavinck and Vos as the two ’sinister’ figures behind VanTil does deserve the time of day. I can assure you Warfield wouldn’t give him anything but contempt.
GLW Johnson said,
April 17, 2008 at 6:08 pm
p.s ‘ does NOT deserve’
Frank Davies said,
April 18, 2008 at 8:56 am
Mr. Baggins, is there any chance you will actually answer Steven’s refutation of you original post? It’s like you guys read two different books. Could you respond to quotes Steven provided and explain why he’s wrong?
GLW Johnson said,
April 18, 2008 at 9:09 am
Lane
How did my comments get over here? I was trying to post them on the VanTil- Clark discussion. Likewise, Ron Henzel makes reference to his previous comment-but I can’t find it on this thread.
greenbaggins said,
April 18, 2008 at 11:21 am
Okay, now to answer Wedgeworth. He has completely misunderstood Rollock. The question Rollock is answering on pg 53 of volume has nothing to do with whether or not merit is an appropriate term to describe Adam’s non-achieved works or Christ’s achieved works. The question that Rollock is answering is whether or not Christ’s works would have availed us *without His death.* Here is what he says immediately before the quotation that Steven gave us:
“It may be demanded, Had it not been sufficient for our good, and to the end he might redeem us, if he had only lived well and holily, and not also so to have suffered death for us? I answer, it had not sufficed. For all his most holy and righteous works had not satisfied the justice and wrath of God for our sins, nor merited, etc.” Plainly, the “for” at the beginning of the third sentence connects the reasoning with the first part. In other words, Christ did merit life eternal for us. But He could not merit it without His death. Steven, in leaving out the context, has completely twisted the meaning of the paragraph to be a statement against merit, when Rollock is saying that Christ’s active obedience means nothing *without His passive obedience.*
With regard to the second quotation, Steven has again misread Rollock, since the point there is whether Christ’s active obedience constitutes part of the *satisfaction.* Rollock is not here answering the question of whether Christ’s active obedience is meritorious for the *reward.* He is saying that Christ’s active obedience is not meritorious for the *satisfaction.* Furthermore, he still uses the term “merit” in terms of Christ’s death: “to speak properly, the death of Christ and his passion only did satisfy God’s justice, *and merited his mercy for us.*”
And again, with regard to the third part, Steven has again misunderstood Rollock. The quotation in question has to do with the fact that Rollock believes Christ’s righteousness to be a seamless whole. The thing that is not acquired by Christ’s works is the satisfaction. Rollock does not here say that our position as inheritors of eternal life was not achieved by Christ’s merit. In short, It is not nearly as clear as Steven makes it out to be that Rollock denies the imputation of Christ’s active obedience.
bret said,
April 18, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Looks like Wedgeworth has been learning from Horne on how to quote sources.
Ron Henzel said,
April 19, 2008 at 8:25 am
Lane,
You wrote:
This is par for the course at the Wedgeworth Country Club, where Steven can frequently be seen holding his scorecard upside-down and arguing with the golf pro over how to play the game. He put his dyslexia on display at his blog in early March in a post he titled “Calvin, Unlimited Expiation, and Stuff Calvinists Probably Don’t Believe,” where he parroted the hackneyed thesis that Calvin contradicted the Council of Dort. When his cheerleading section confirmed their own ignorance of Calvin, his chutzpah inflated to the size of the Mission Hills Golf Course.
Absence, Feminism, et al « Reformed Musings said,
April 19, 2008 at 7:40 pm
[...] handles yet another Federal Vision attempt to revise history in this post. Sounds like he’ll take on some of the newer Federal Vision writings. I’ll be happy to [...]
Steven W said,
April 20, 2008 at 12:12 am
Rollock uses exclusive terms. “No part” and “only.”
I trust that everyone can read it for themselves.
PS-Calvin did not contradict the Synod of Dort because the Synod of Dort is quite balanced. It is actually a great model for unity among diversity.
Steven W said,
April 20, 2008 at 12:32 am
He even answers the hypothetical question:
The original was in response to the works, but not death position. Rollock doesn’t leave it there though, does he? He answers the next question and uses a lot of exclusive terms.
Now if you want to add new categories and paste them in, then that’s your prerogative. But it isn’t history.
Xon said,
April 20, 2008 at 12:54 am
Lane, a hypothetical dialogue:
Bob: Hey, John, is the Venus de Milo made of bread?
John: Indeed not, Bob. She is not made of bread. In fact, neither is she made of stone.
—————-
Now, is it even remotely reasonable to say that, b/c the “context” of John’s remark is answering Bob’s question about whether Venus is made of bread, that therefore John’s comment cannot be read as addressing the question of whether she’s made of stone at all?
To be a little tighter in the analogy, if John denies she is made of bread by saying that she is not made of ANYTHING physical, then does the above analysis not remain just as unconvincing?
Rollock says that active obedience has “no part” in meriting satisfaction. “Only” the passive has a part. That’s what he says, no matter what question he was originally addressing when he said it. ??
Ron Henzel said,
April 20, 2008 at 9:08 am
Steven,
Are you now saying that both Calvin and the Synod of Dort teach Limited Atonement?
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
April 20, 2008 at 10:47 am
Rollock is clearly referring to two distinct parts of salvation: he distinguishes “appeasing God’ justice” and “purchasing God’s favor,” “satisfaction” and “merit,” “satisfying God’s justice” and “meriting God’s mercy.” This sounds like the two parts that are traditionally assigned to the passive and active obedience, respectively (remission of sin, then reception of the reward of life), yet Rollock very clearly states that the passive obedience is the exclusive ground of both…
Jeff Cagle said,
April 20, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I agree with Lane that we need to distinguish Rollock’s arguments against merit in the RC sense from arguments against merit in the Reformed sense. Merit in the RC sense is quantifiable (indulgences!) and ontologically transferrable. You can have people who are more or less guilty, sins that convey more or less guilt, and means of canceling sins by some quantity of grace. Hence infused grace, sacraments, indulgences, Limbo.
Merit in the Reformed sense is purely forensic, and corresponds to a binary quality of being “innocent” or “guilty.” There are no partially guilty people on a Protestant account of God’s judgment.
So when we talk about God imputing anything, we aren’t talking about God stacking up Christ’s death on the cross over against our sin and deciding which one weighs more. Christ’s righteousness is not *transferred* to us in that sense, at all — whether active OR passive.
Instead, we’re reckoned innocent, cleared of charges, on the ground of Christ’s death for us. The sacrificial Lamb takes our place, becomes sin for us.
But what is the ground of Christ’s death for us? What allows Him to perform His office? His life for us.
So why raise a fuss about whether Christ’s active obedience is the ground of our justification, or the ground of the ground of our justification?
Instead, it seems to me that we should all agree that merit isn’t transferred in God’s courtroom (because merit isn’t a quantifiable thing), but instead is imputed, reckoned to be ours. And then the fight over “active v. passive” can blow away.
— Rollock, quoted in Steve W’s blog.
I guess it’s a stupid argument or something, but ISTM that IAOX is a short syllogism:
(1) I am declared innocent because the Sacrificial Lamb took my sin upon himself and I took on his innocence.
(2) His innocence included his patience obedience and suffering as a human.
(3) Therefore, I am declared innocent on the partial basis of his patient obedience and suffering.
Isn’t that IAOX? Or, what’s wrong with the syllogism?
Jeff Cagle
Ron Henzel said,
April 20, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Jeff,
You wrote in comment 50:
It seems to me that one problem may be that point (2) of your syllogism seems to describe passive obedience rather than active obedience. Another problem may be that innocence is generally distinguished from positive righteousness, which is what the imputation of Christ’s active obedience is really all about.
Jeff Cagle said,
April 20, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Ron (#51):
It seems to me that one problem may be that point (2) of your syllogism seems to describe passive obedience rather than active obedience.
Oh, I can see how it might be read that way. “Suffering as a human” looks like the passion.
No, what I have in mind is what Hebrews 5 is saying: he learned obedience –> he was made perfect –> he became the source of salvation. In other words, point (2) is referring to the righteous life lived as our priest (and as second Adam, but Hebrews doesn’t go there). “Suffering as a human” was intended to refer to taking on flesh and living for 30+ years on our behalf.
Maybe (2) ought to read:
(2′
Jesus’ innocence is grounded in the righteous life he led on earth, including his patient obedience and suffering as a human.
Is that better?
Another problem may be that innocence is generally distinguished from positive righteousness …
Yes, those two are often distinguished. I’ve heard people teach for example that if we only received Jesus’ passive obedience, then that would get us back to neutral with God when what we really need is a positive righteousness.
What do you think about that distinction? Can one be innocent but not righteous?
For my part, I see righteousness in Scripture as always relational: To be tsaddiq is to fear the Lord, walk in his ways, and do what is just towards one’s neighbor. To fulfill the royal law is to love your neighbor. The commands upon which all others hang are to love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength; and to love neighbor as self. The core sin of humanity is to fail to honor God as God and to worship the creation rather than the creator. And so on.
So if righteousness *is* fundamentally relational — covenantal, even — then ISTM that there is no distinction between innocence and positive righteousness. Conversely, there is no distinction between unrighteousness and guilt.
Or put another way, where do people go who die and who are innocent but not righteous?
Jeff
Jeff Cagle said,
April 20, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Ack! The wink again. I didn’t have a semi-parens, I promise!
( 2 ‘ )
(2′
blah blah
Ron Henzel said,
April 21, 2008 at 5:47 am
Steven’s gotten awfully quiet. I wonder what he meant by that “unity among diversity” phrase (comment 45)?
Anthony Coletti said,
April 21, 2008 at 9:20 am
Hi Lane,
For some reason my comments are not going through on the VT/GHC blog post. I think I know what’s up. I added more than three URL links to my post. I bet WordPress has blocked it as potential spam and it is waiting for your approval.
Could you check for me? There should be one for last night, and a near duplicate from this morning (4/21/08). You can delete the first one and OK the second (if it hasn’t gone to the spam after-world already.)
Sorry about the trouble.
Thanks,
Anthony
Xon said,
April 22, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I don’t know, Jeff, you tell me.
On this point, it’s not like FVers are running around “raising a stink.” They are seeking greater theological precision. Whether we have Christ’s passive obedience imputed to us AND his active obedience imputed directly to us, or whether we have only his passive obedience imputed to us, but his passive obedience was made possible by his active obedience (the FV position, generally speaking, though this is a fairly “dark” ale) are logically distinct propositions. In the one it appears that our “positive” righteousness in God’s eyes is that we did the things Jesus did in His earthly life, but in the other (FV) position the “positive” righteousness is in Christ’s vindication on the cross. So, because we died with him, we also live with him. God raised Him from the dead, which was his vindication from his enemeies nad his ultimate “declaratoin” that he was the Righteous One, and so we shall receive the same declaration.
Again, we all have the same pieces. I’m not saying TRs don’t believe in the resurrection of believers. I’m just saying that the way it all gets put together is of some significance. I agree with not “making a stink” over it in the grand scheme, but then who is kicking who out of Reformed denominations?
Xon said,
April 22, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Steven is quite because nobody is answering his point, frankly. There, that’s my grumpiest, bluntest, philosopher-talk.
Noone has answered my “point” (put as a rhetorical question, which was perhaps annoying) in 47, either. And our points (mine and Steven’s) are pretty much the same.
Big deal made out of Rollock. Oh, everybody read Rollock. Great man. Rollock then employed as an enemy of FV. Quotes pointed to in Rollock (and not just found ad hoc, either…Steven W had quoted Rollock on his blog long before Lane brought him up here) which show him denying that any “merit” from Christ’s active obedience is imputed to believers. He denies this explicitly. The point was never that Rollock denied merit outright, but that he supported the FV denial of Impuatation of the Active Obedience. If Rollock is a great Reformed figure, and he gets to say that, then why can’t FVers say it? Don’t change the subject to other areas where we are supposedly heretical. That’s fine to do, in the overall discourse with us, but right here and right now we are talking about Rollock, who Lane brought up in the first place, not us. On that point, regarding IAOX, will you concede that Rollock sounds like an FVer?
No, you won’t. Of course, it’s FVers who “never admit they are wrong” (an oft-repeated refrain, especially by Lane), but when caught with Rollock’s own words you’ll do anything but just admit that, on this one issue, we’re historically in the clear. Just admit it on this, and then we can move on to talk about other things. What good does it do you to die on this hill?
Your reading of Rollock is entirely speculative. He “must would have believed” in pactum merit. Well, first of all, that isn’t the point. Rollock already talks about “merit,” and nobody is claiming that he denies all merit, period. The claim, again, is that Rollock denies that the Active Obedience of Christ is something imputed to us as “merit”. And the answer is no, it’s not. Rollock says so. The active obed of Christ “did serve properly for no part of satisfaction or merit for us.” (See Steven’s citation in #1)
What is imputed to us is not that we are “Righteous and Dead” (Active and passive). It’s that we are “Dead and Resurrected” (Passive and Active). The righteousness of Christ is what made it possible for His death to be imputed to us (so we can’t be Dead unless Christ had been perfectly actively righteous). But that’s not the same as saying that his righteousness is what is imputed.
Jeff Cagle said,
April 22, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Hey Xon,
I don’t want to fight about this issue. I was just trying to offer up tertium quid for FVers to be able to legitimately affirm IAOX without having to commit themselves to a theology of merit as “righteousness points given from Jesus to me.”
Sorry to have insinuated blame for “the fuss”; that wasn’t my intent.
Grace and peace,
Jeff