The Preface to the Joint Federal Vision, Revisited
April 22, 2008 at 3:41 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy)
I have gone through the entire Joint Federal Vision Profession (hereafter abbreviated JFVP). An index to the entirety of the discussion can be found here (second paragraph of links). For those who are incredibly lazy, the previous discussion of the Preface can be found here. And the JFVP itself can be found here. That should be enough preliminary, prefatory, introductory, forwardary links to get on with (and I even managed to end the sentence with two prepositions that time! Except for this parenthesis).
My thoughts on the matter have not changed much. I have not found the FV any more teachable than before. If anything, less so. I still have yet to see any major retractions of doctrinal error on the part of any one of the FV “conversation partners.” This is no doubt due to the massively non-existent evidence that no one in any of the major Reformed denominations (nor the denoms themselves) has amassed demonstrating the error of any single points of the FV. At least, to the FV thinking, anyway. We shall see.
There seemed to be a desire on the part of the signatories to say that they had no desire to present a “moving target.” I have found the FV to be an extremely moving target. The minute one has a logical argument against a position that has been written down, I am told that that isn’t their position. It was their position just a minute before, when what we had was written documentation. However, what always seems to happen is that I am told that I am a dolt, an irresponsible nincompoop, who cannot even understand plain English. Of course, not everyone in the FV camp has been doing this to me (Wilson being an example, though he doesn’t think I have proven one single aspect of any FV thinker’s theology to be out of bounds).
However, I will seek to prove one example where I believe that the FV statement is thoroughly non-confessional. As we all know, the PCA study committee report roundly reinforced a bi-covenantal structure to the WCF. The Covenant of Works, in chapter 7 of the WCF, plainly says that eternal life was promised to Adam upon condition of personal and perfect obedience. The JFVP says plainly that “the gift or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements” (see under the section “The Covenant of Life.” Now, I am not sure what else Adam’s moral exertions or achievements could be other than his obedience to God’s law, or personal and perfect obedience. So the condition of obtaining eternal life was works, according to the WCF, and not works according to the JFVP. The PCA has decided that this is not going to be an allowable exception to the Standards. And this is only one example. Others will come later.
pduggie said,
April 22, 2008 at 4:19 pm
If one said the gift was conditioned on moral exertions or achievements, would that make sense? Would it be a gift, or earned?
Can one believe that eternal life would be any kind of gift at all under the WCF?
KBennett said,
April 22, 2008 at 4:27 pm
pduggie -
So, essentially, you do not like the WCF.
Fine. Why then do you attend a PCA church?
Jason J. Stellman said,
April 22, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Lane,
To be fair, Lusk retracted his statement that justification “involves no imputation or transfer of anything” to reflect his view that it is imputation (logizomai) that does not involve transfer, but that justification does involve imputation (understood as reckoning).
To your point about being unfairly dealth with, just last week when Tom Wenger made the point that certain proponents of the FV teach that justification is retained through obedience, both Jeff Meyers and James Jordan jumped into the fray and insisted that NO ONE in the FV teaches such a thing (even demonstrating great exasperation and then issuing a challenge to “name one” who does). When Tom produced a quote from Rich Lusk that said that justification is retained through obedience, these two men mysteriously vanished.
I just wish they’d stick up for one another a bit more, you know? It would help the rest of us take them more seriously.
tim prussic said,
April 22, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Lusk saith, thus, the FV saith.
That’s one thing that’s been so maddening in this whole mess is that folks are wont to speak of the FV as some monolithic movement with solidified ideas. In my reading, NO movements are that way. Further, folks seem quite eager to impute things written by one or a few to the whole. If one can take a crazy statement (or ten of them) from one author and paint a whole group of men as crazy heretics, shouldn’t one also be able to take an orthodox statement (or ten of them) from one author and paint similarly? Or is it only paint by one number - whichever one number you prefer? The reality is that it’s bad scholarship EITHER way.
Ed Eubanks said,
April 22, 2008 at 5:49 pm
KBennett: I like the WCF plenty– I’ve taken vows as a Teaching Elder that acknowledge that. I trust that you like the WCF as well, given your ready defense of it. But I don’t understand how you conclude that PDuggie doesn’t simply because he asks questions about it. Are we not allowed to investigate the contents of the WCF? I find that asking questions is the best way to gain a fuller understanding of the WCF, don’t you?
Also, the last time I checked then the only requirement for membership in a PCA church is a profession of faith in Christ. Every PCA church I have attended has had members who did not agree with the WCF on every point (and, in fact, some of them didn’t like the WCF). I gladly shared fellowship with them as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Why, then, should PDuggie’s affiliation with a PCA church be questioned? (I realize that the fundamental principles of the BCO allow a church to name requirements for membership beyond a profession of faith; I’m just not aware of any PCA churches that do so. Are you advocating that?)
I ask with all sincerity; please, help me understand your response.
tim prussic said,
April 22, 2008 at 5:50 pm
In no way related to my last post: Can anyone recommend some good reading on the Cov’t of Redemption? I’m currently reading Witsius’s Ecomony, but I’d like some more. Ideas?
J.Kru said,
April 22, 2008 at 5:52 pm
KBennett - Does one need to affirm the WCF to attend a PCA church?
Andrew Duggan said,
April 22, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Re #2,
I’ve always thought the reason was to get away from his relatives in the OPC church he grew up in.
Full disclosure, I’m Paul’s cousin and a member of said OPC church, and just poking a little fun. If anyone’s offended, please delete this…
J.Kru said,
April 22, 2008 at 6:05 pm
A question came up in class today, I thought this might be the place to go for the answer: Hebrews 11:6 says that “And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” I understand the FV view of it; what is the response in relation to Adam - how could Adam have pleased God without faith? Is it a pre-lapsarian situation which makes it possible?
Joe Brancaleone said,
April 22, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Re: #5
John Owen, “Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated”
Jason J. Stellman said,
April 22, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Tim,
Nice try, but if you read my comment you’ll see that I wasn’t saying that, in your words, “Lusks says, therefore the FV says.”
What I said was that two well-known FV’ists claimed that not a single person in the FV espoused the view in question, not even Lusk. A quote by Lusk affirming the view in question was produced. And POOF! like Keyser Soze, the FV’ists were gone.
Jeff Cagle said,
April 22, 2008 at 7:06 pm
J Kru (#8):
I would note that the faith spoken of in Hebrews is in relationship to our longing for something not yet seen. So certainly, faith will either take on an entirely different character or else be superfluous in eternity.
Likely, it would have had an entirely different character in the garden as well.
This is not to say that Adam did not need to exercise something — faith, love, or obedience, or some combination of those — at his probation. Clearly, he failed to believe God’s word enough to obey it. Or, he failed to love God enough to obey Him.
Rather, I’m simply saying that we should be careful about applying Heb. 11.6 to the pre-fall situation (as you suggested).
Jeff Cagle
thomasgoodwin said,
April 22, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Tim,
Re: #5
Try Goodwin, Christ the Mediator (vol. 5, 1861 ed.), first 30 or so pages.
Also: Bavinck,Vol. 3:213ff.
Richard Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept,” Mid-America Journal of Theology, 18 (2007), 64.
And if you want a summary of Owen’s view, I can send you something (mjns at mta.ca
tim prussic said,
April 22, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Jason, I wasn’t trying. Foolish categorical denials on the FV side are just that. I’m not defending anyone. Rather, I’m observing an all-too-common fallacy.
TG, shoot that summary of Owen at me, baby.
Chris said,
April 22, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Sean Lucas clearly stated in the introduction before GA that the Report didn’t exclude various positions on the covenant of works. Listen to him! He wrote it.
Chris
pduggie said,
April 22, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I’d be happy to have all my relatives join me.
I’m asking about whether the concept of “gift” can fit into the covenant of works in the WCF because I don’t know. I would HOPE it could, and I think it could/should. I was asking.
thomasgoodwin said,
April 22, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Tim,
What’s your email?
Jeff Cagle said,
April 22, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Paul (#15):
It probably depends on one’s understanding of “gift”, wouldn’t it?
Could we all agree that the Confession requires and the Scripture teaches that (a) all of mankind’s relationship with God is a “gift” in the sense of His divine condescension, but additionally (b) Adam “owed” something to God (obedience) that he failed to discharge, (c) that eternal life was conditioned upon that obedience, and (d) that the “covenant of grace” operates on a different principle from the “covenant of works”?
ISTM that the Confessional language actually provides a good launching point for common ground, since some of the technical issues raised by Kline or Murray can fall within the language of VII.1-3.
Interestingly, while the debate over the “Covenant of Works/Life” has swirled around questions of “merit”, “earning”, “son” v. “servant”, “grace”, and “gift”, I haven’t seen a lot of discussion about the fact that Adam owed obedience to God — whether as son or servant.
That fact changes the complexion of any “gift” that we might perceive in the first covenant, no?
Jeff C
tim prussic said,
April 22, 2008 at 9:03 pm
timprussic at gmail dot com
(edited for security reasons)
Xon said,
April 22, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Jeff, you make a good points. And I don’t think they go against FV. In other words, yes, I think we can all agree to the 4 things you listed.
No FVer I’ve ever read would deny that Adam owed God obedience. He absolutely owed God obedience. And he also would have owed God thanks if he had obeyed.
All is grace, from beginning to end, even pre-fall (the prelapsarian state was not some suspension of Calvinism, where suddenly God did not exercise precise sovereignty over all that comes to pass). And if it’s grace, then we should say “thank you.”
But conditionality is included in all of that. Of course, conditionality is included in the “covenant of grace,” too. If A then B means that B is a necessary condition for A. If Adam obtained eternal life, then he obeyed/had faith/loved God. If Adam obeyed, then God gave it to him to obey. Therefore, If Adam obtained eternal life, then God gave it to him. (this is a sorite, not a syllogism proper..but I leave the missing premise to the reader)
And if God gave it to him, then why would he boast as if God hadn’t? For what would he have received that was not a gift? But if a gift, then why would he boast? He wouldn’t boast. Yet Lane (unless I’ve missed a retraction on his part…don’t know about you anti-FV guys, never willing to admit you’re wrong.
) says Adam wouldn’t owe God a thank you, and that obeying wouldn’t have been grace.
I can say “eternal life conditioned on obedience” all day long. I’ll say it hopping one foot if you want. I’ll even throw in the word “merit” if folks like (If all “merit” means is “fulfill a condition, no matter how arbitrary and unfitting to the actual nature of the reward”). But I just can’t bring myself to say that Adam’s pre-fall existence was sola gratia, even if he had obeyed.
As to calling Adam’s obedience a “work,” again the objection here is to notions of “work” that have “merit” (in the wrong sense) tied up in it. The “covenant of works” has become a shorthand for the whole “TR” package, and so understandably we balk at the term if it is frontloaded with that sort of meaning. But again if all “work” means is “fulfill a condition,” then sure, the CoLife was a Cov of Works in that sense.
But, again, here comes the problem: Lane has said, and I don’t deny that he has good Reformed history to back him up when he says it, that “faith is not a work.” Of course, that’s Pauline and biblical, but not on the really loose definition of “work” we’re using now where “work” just means “fulfill a condition.” On that loose sort of definition, it isn’t at all clear how faith (now, in the Cov of Grace) is not a work. You have to have faith or you won’t be saved. If saved, then faith. Faith is a necessary condition for salvation. So…
As to commentary on the previous thread, Meyers and Jordan have both made it clear (for good or ill) that they do not wish to engage in long engagements on the blogs about these issues. They both come on only very occasionally when they fell prompted to do so acc. to whatever evaluation they make of the situation at the time. They never come in intending to have a big long debate, where they respond to every counter-point someone makes, and they often state pretty clearly that they’re done with the thread. And, when they say that, they usually stick with it (in fact, I can’t think of any times where Jordan or Meyers have failed to stick with their promise to quit a thread). So the fact that they personally didn’t respond to the Lusk quote in that other thread doesn’t mean they “slinked off”. These are not vocal guys on the blogs, relatively speaking.
Some people did respond to the Lusk quote, though.
Jeff Cagle said,
April 22, 2008 at 10:11 pm
this is a sorite, not a syllogism proper..
Ah, but is it a proposition?
*ducks*
Jeff Cagle said,
April 22, 2008 at 10:52 pm
A couple of more serious notes:
(1) All is grace, from beginning to end, even pre-fall (the prelapsarian state was not some suspension of Calvinism, where suddenly God did not exercise precise sovereignty over all that comes to pass). And if it’s grace, then we should say “thank you.”
I’ve mentioned before that I don’t think that God’s general exercise of His sovereignty is the same as His gracious decree to save some; that is, “sovereignty” != “monergism.”
Two reasons:
(a) God also exercises His sovereignty in passing over people to their damnation; yet this is not of grace.
(b) Sovereignty is generally understood that God is the final cause, even though He typically uses instrumental causes. By contrast, monergism historically has been tied up with the notion of the Bondage of the Will: that even at the level of instrumental causes, we cannot choose to love or trust God. Hence, God must intervene specially in order for our hearts to be changed. Or in other words, there must be a direct work of the Spirit (in addition to any instrumental causes) for us to believe.
Here’s one fallout of this: in the case of instrumental causes, we can analyze them statistically because God is, typically, regular in the exercise of His sovereignty. But in the case of salvation, we admit on all hands that instrumental causes alone (preaching of the Gospel in *this* way v. *that* way) resist statistical analysis. God chooses whom He wills.
I think this is relevant to the Adam discussion in this way:
(2) There is *something* about the character of the “CoW” that is markedly different about the character of the “CoG.” Adam *did* have a freedom of the will that we who are in bondage to sin lack. Clearly, that freedom does not transcend God’s sovereignty. But it does transcend our experience, what with the sin nature and all.
And in fact, that freedom is peculiar really only to Adam and Jesus — and in part, to Jesus’ people who are indwelt by His Spirit (as in Rom. 6 - 8).
(3) Additionally, Adam was offered a real path to life that was grounded in his own actions. Don’t Eat The Fruit. The action point could be stated positively as Resist the Temptation. And the Federal Headship action point was Maintain Life for Your Family.
We are not offered that path. Even if, hypothetically, we had died without breaking a commandment, we still would die.
Instead, our path to life is grounded in the actions of another.
I know you Really Know all this and believe it, too. I just offer it up in order to point out that the distinction between faith and works does not lie in necessary conditions, but in the actions of oneself v. the actions of another, and in the unique ways in which Federal Headship functions in the two covenants.
Because Man is the federal head in the first, the destiny of Man is determined by the works of Man. But because God-Man is the federal head in the second, the destiny of Man is determined by the works of God (in the flesh). There’s an asymmetry in the terminology because of the asymmetry of the Federal Heads, not because of the presence or absence of necessary conditions.
That’s why, understanding Murray’s and Jordan’s point about grace in the garden, I still like “Covenant of Works” and “Covenant of Grace” because it points to that alien righteousness that is mine because of the works of another.
Whatever you may think of Kline, I think one of his better points is to insist that Adam and Jesus are doing parallel things by federally “earning” or “acquiring” the destinies of their people.
(My favorite Kline point, BTW, came in a review of a Chalcedon publication in which he pointed out that theonomy simultaneously requires the Church to evangelize the pagans and the State to execute pagans for violating the first commandment. A delightful and substantive snark.)
Jeff Cagle
Joseph Randall said,
April 23, 2008 at 12:57 am
It seems to me, Pastor Wilson focuses on HOW Adam would obey. Is it not true that he would have had to obeyed by trusting God’s Word as opposed to the serpents word? Wouldn’t Adam have had to obey by faith because only faith pleases God? Certainly it’s wrong to construe Adam as autonomous, right? Even Jesus said He could do nothing of Himself (John 5). Jesus relied upon the Father to obey. And yet, the BASIS on which Adam (would have) and Christ did win our eternal reward was on the BASIS of His works. This is why it’s a covenant of works. And we can be righteous only on the basis of the work of another - Christ. Is this correct anyone? Thanks for your help.
Elder Hoss said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:05 am
Jeff Cagle- Snarks most often are not substantive, but rather aphoristic in nature. Do you think in part Kline relied on “snarks” as a direct outgrowth of his unswerving insistence that Westiminster Journal forbid Bahnsen to engage in debate with him (you are presumably aware that Kline requested the publication of his “review” of theonomy with the expressed caveat that Bahnsen not be allowed to respond?)?
And it would appear his stout-hearted disciples in Westminster West have shown an equal aversion to discursive combat with less capable debaters (than Bahnsen), such as Wilson, no?
Jason J. Stellman said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:36 am
Hi Elder (I’m assuming that’s your first name),
Have you ever read a book by Kline? If so, then I find it amazing that you can call him “not substantive,” “averse to discursive combat,” and “relying on snarks.”
And since I am a WSC alum, I hereby forbid you to respond to this comment.
Sincerely (kinda),
Minister Stellman
Xon said,
April 23, 2008 at 3:18 am
Given that hardly any “hard core” theonomists are even around any more, I choose not to respond (except in the present sentence in which I point out said choice) re: the merits or demerits of Kline’s representation of theonomy.
As to your #21, Jeff, again you make some good points but I don’t think we are disagreeing on many of this, or where we might disagree I don’t think it is really germane to my point.
First, I’m not saying that divine sovereignty = monergism. They are not identical notions. Sovereignty, however, entails monergism. If God controls everything, then He controls who is saved and who is not, who meets the necessary ‘conditions” for being saved, etc. It is all rooted, primarily/finally, in His will as Primary Cause. Thus, whatever happens in the Garden is God’s doing as Primary Cause.
I also am fine with saying that “monergism” applies to situations in which the instrumental causes of salvation (our own human will) is all botched up and so God has to directly intervene in each person’s life individually. But in this case all you have done is make monergism a narrower category than “grace.” My original point was about grace, not monergism per se.
Grace is, at root, gift. If something is given freely, without regard to what we deserve, then it is grace. Adam did not deserve to be given life with God in the first place. Nor did he “deserve” the continuation of that life moment-by-moment. The fact that he had to obey in order to maintain that continuation doesn’t mean that by obeying he “deserved” it, except in the sense of “pactum merit” in which it is openly acknowledged by everyone that the reward does not in any way (kind or degree) match up to the work. Thus, the reward is still not “deserved” in the nature of things, even if Adam were to keep the condition of continuing in his glorified pre-fall life. But here we come down to the fundament: words. We can define “deserve”, “merit,” “earn,” etc., however we like. And so if we want to say that for a person to “deserve” or “merit” something simply means that they fulfill a necessary condition for attaining it, no matter how arbitrary and “unnatural” the condition is in relation to the reward, then everybody in this debate would affirm that in Adam’s state, obedience would “deserve” continued life. But this, actually, is a rather strained definition of “desert”, not that I really care. So I myself don’t pick that word as my first approach to talking about these things. And of course, this notion of “deserve” is perfectly consistent with grace too. And my point all along has just been that there is grace in the Garden, and that any obedience Adam had rendered would have been grace (gift), too.
This is all quite right, and remember that I said I could agree with you on the two covenants being two indeed (different). Everybody says this that I know of; I’ve really never interacted with a genuine “monocovenantalist” in this debate, ever. As you say, the “path” (of instrumental causation0 that Adam would have walked to attain eternal life is significantly different from teh path we must walk, post-Fall. I agree with that 100%, and I agree that the paths differ in the way that you say. What I deny is that, if Adam had walked his path in the way that he was supposed to walk it, that that would not have qualified as “grace” and a gift for which he would have needed to be thankful.
And hey, that’s fine. The requirement of the works of another is an important point to remember, to be sure! I think it can be reflected through other characterizations of the two covenants, but we can certainly agree to disagree as to the best term we would each prefer to use.
J.Kru said,
April 23, 2008 at 8:43 am
Let me try this on: could we say that Adam needed to believe (hold to be true) and value (act upon belief) God’s Word? Assuming Adam valued life, he needed to believe what God told him about the consequences of the tree of life. This is a different sort of faith than that which we have in the New Covenant in that the content of God’s Word is very different, but it is similar in that it is belief and valuation of God’s Word?
Mark said,
April 23, 2008 at 9:39 am
Jeff #22
2) There is *something* about the character of the “CoW” that is markedly different about the character of the “CoG.” Adam *did* have a freedom of the will that we who are in bondage to sin lack.
That is to confuse freedom and ability.
greenbaggins said,
April 23, 2008 at 9:56 am
Elder Hoss, consider comment 24 as strike one. That was completely unnecessary.
Joseph (23), I certainly agree that the basis of how Adam would have obtained eternal life was works. We agree there. I would probably not phrase Adam’s relationship to God as one of faith. God spoke to Adam face to face on several recorded occasions in Genesis 1-3. There was no veil between God and man. In other words, Adam lived by sight, not by faith. He still had to believe God’s word, as opposed to Satan’s word (and thus I agree with J. Kru’s interpretation). However, the pre-Fall situation and the post-Fall situation were very different when it comes to faith. This difference is something that the FV obliterates, in my opinion.
Ken Christian said,
April 23, 2008 at 10:13 am
Ref 29 - Lane, how is Adam’s “pre-fall” experience of speaking to God “face to face” any different than Abraham’s or Moses’? Did they no longer need to walk by faith simply because they’d seen God from time to time? I don’t think your argument that Adam didn’t have faith because He saw God from time to time bears the weight you’re putting upon it.
And please don’t return Heb. 11 on this one. The “unseen” things that faith grasps are clearly the unfulfilled realities of God’s promises to his people. That’s what the whole chapter is about. In addition, even Adam had to believe in the unseen fulfillments of God’s promises to Him. Right? And if so, isn’t that faith?
magma2 said,
April 23, 2008 at 10:14 am
In responding to Lane’s comments above, Wilson writes on his blog:
Translation: Lane you’re a dolt, an irresponsible nincompoop, who cannot even understand plain English. You have not proven one single aspect of any FV thinker’s theology to be out of bounds. Which is stupid to even attempt since there is nothing in the FV that is out of bounds.
greenbaggins said,
April 23, 2008 at 10:46 am
Ken, the face to face encounters of Abraham and Moses were tied in to revelation. Those encounters were not the norm for those relationships, even though such encounters were vitally important. But face to face living before God characterized Adam’s relationship with God. God was not veiled to Adam. Besides, in Hebrews 11, it is still said of Abraham that he lived by faith. It is *not* said of Adam. So, Heb 11 is not irrelevant to the discussion.
Ken Christian said,
April 23, 2008 at 10:55 am
Ref 32 - Lane, you brought up Heb. 11 awhile back stressing that real faith must in something invisible, or something like that. Anyway, I don’t we can confidently say that face to face living before God characterized Adam’s relationship (or would have). The scriptural evidence for that is way too thin. And even if it did, that doesn’t wouldn’t take away the necessity of faith for Adam, i.e. He still had to believe God was who He said he was (obviosly Satan tried to create doubt on this subject) and He had to believe God would do what He has promised to do. Finally, to admit all this doesn’t require one to give up “obedience” as the sole condition of the Covenant of Works. It’s just to say his obedience, which God would’ve graciously (or pactum merit-ly) rewarded, flowed from faith.
Tim Harris said,
April 23, 2008 at 10:56 am
The FV camp, like every camp, is divided into three categories: (1) a small group of the highly educated (e.g. Liethart, Jordan), (2) a group of self-educated (e.g. Wilson and most of the internet-posters), and (3) a vast flotilla of those with the standard credential-earning education (MDiv).
The problem I see here is that most of the blog-level discussion is taking place with category (2). And it leads to a lot of back-and-forth that gives the false appearance of intelligent discussion.Two examples.
“Ah, so you agree that God’s benevolence was unearned? So that was grace also. It’s grace grace grace wherever you turn.”
“Ah, so Adam should have trusted God? But trust is faith. So it is faith, faith, faith wherever you turn.”
But these comments are sophomoric. I do not advocate learning jargon for its own sake, but learning what terms mean in a particular community and why distinctions were made is necessary before there is hope for advance. Most of the gas is emitted by category (2) people, and the answer should be a simple, “this is why Presbyterians have always advocated an educated ministry.”
magma2 said,
April 23, 2008 at 10:59 am
Lane responds to Wilson saying in part:
Could it be that Wilson wants to maintain an obedience to the law that is not a work? Nah, it couldn’t be that. Now, what was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity , upon condition of perfect and personal obedience? Hmm. Yet, Wilson said “one ought not be allowed to interchange as though they were synonyms — obedience and works.” Of course not.
Despite our disagreements, nice work Lane.
Ken Christian said,
April 23, 2008 at 10:59 am
Ref 33 - Sorry for the typos. In line 2, please insert a “be” between “must” and “in”. Line 3 should have a “think” between “don’t” and “we”. Finally, line 6 should have the word “doesn’t” removed. Sorry gents.
pduggie said,
April 23, 2008 at 11:15 am
Jeff: I agree with you on gift, and happy to see you’re happy with the language of Gift. The new car for an A on a test is a fatherly gift, not a employeees wages. That’s what I take the FVs statements language against “exertions or achievements” to guard against, a tendency to reduce Adam to a wage-earner. Yes, his reward was conditioned on obedience. But it was still a gift. Does anyone else want to chime in and say “gift” is an inappropriate description of Adam’s potential for eternal life and FULLER communion with God (recall, Lane, that Adam may have had full communion, but he wasn’t at the fourth state of man)
As a thought experiment, I’ll conceed that pre-fall adam and ourselves are in very different covenental places.
But then I’d like to assert that there’s a whole lot of similarity between our position and pre-fall EVE.
The proof of this is left as an exercise.
Thoughts?
pduggie said,
April 23, 2008 at 11:26 am
Wow, Tim Harris. Just Wow.
So much for “the common people heard him gladly”.
If you can’t communicate to the crowd in a way they will understand then Presbyterianism is self-selecting as a non-catholic religion with specialized terminology for the in-crowd. That’s why the FV emphasis on speaking the Bible’s own words in a covenantal sense is so crucial.
Jason J. Stellman said,
April 23, 2008 at 12:15 pm
For me the real question is whether pro-FV folks will admit that the principle of inheritance was different before the fall than after it. When we put aside all talk of “employees” versus “children,” we are left with that question, which is where the gospel really hangs.
pduggie said,
April 23, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Yeah, pre-fall we weren’t co-heirs. Now we are.
Jason J. Stellman said,
April 23, 2008 at 12:54 pm
But why?
Are we co-heirs now because we have “faithfully obeyed” as Adam should have done to reach the same goal? Or would Adam have received the glorious reward through works, while we receive it through faith in the second Adam and his work?
Ken Christian said,
April 23, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Ref 41 - Jason, my opinion matters very little though I have been labeled by some on this blog as pro-FV. Anyway, I can’t think of any reason the big-wig FV men wouldn’t answer “no” to your first question and “yes” to your second.
Tom Albrecht said,
April 23, 2008 at 12:59 pm
RE: #8
Andrew,
Speaking of relatives, I forget, which one of you is the real “Duggan” and which is the “Doogan”?
David Gadbois said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Several things:
1. It is telling that neither Adam nor Jesus are included in the list in Hebrews 11.
2. FVers seem to think that they should be exonerated as orthodox just because they will formally affirm orthodox statements in some places while making unorthodox statements in other places. It is not sufficient to establish FVs innocence because of the fact that JFVP has two contradictory statements. We would not accept such a defense from someone who said “Jesus is God” and then turned around and said “Jesus is not Yahweh.”
Orthodoxy does not take with one hand and give with the other hand.
3. FV does not seem to be aware of the fact that making the CoW gracious cascades into many, many other areas of Reformed doctrine. If it is gracious, then it is not a matter of justice. So our plight as breakers of the CoW is not a legal/judicial problem. So our need for justification, or the passive and active obedience of Christ (that’s all legal stuff) becomes incoherent.
If you don’t get the CoW right, then you don’t get the pivotal probem of religion right, and you don’t understand why Jesus needed to become incarnate in order to redeem us from it. I sense FV isn’t especially fond of the book of Romans, which lays it all out most clearly: Jesus was set forth as a propitiation “so that he [God] might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” How can a just God acquit sinners who are not just? Answer: Jesus.
We have a justice problem, so if we are to interpret the root of this problem to be Adam’s failure of the covenant established in the Garden, then that covenant *must* be characterized by God’s justice as expressed in a demand for obedience to His just law. That’s works, folks, not a gracious system.
Again, in Romans, Paul tells us straightforwardly that a principle of works is not compatible with grace:
11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
And Paul puts it in a positive formulation this way, establishing faith as the necessary principle of inheritance for a covenant to be gracious:
4:16 it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace
And, notice, that this is not just a generic *faith*, but, in context, it is passive/receptive faith in the work of an outside Substitute and Mediator on their behalf. This definition of faith could not have applied to Adam nor Jesus.
Ken Christian said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:17 pm
David writes
FV says the promised reward for fulfulling the CoW involved grace. Yet it still affirms that sin (breaking the CoW) exposed Adam to God’s wrath. Thus Adam then had a legal/judicial problem that had to be solved by the atoning death of Jesus. Why is that so difficult to see?
pduggie said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:22 pm
44: Jesus *is* in Hebrews 12,having done just what the Heb 11 folks did: endured opposition and suffering. And its been my understanding the the idea of him as “founder” of our faith may include the idea of pioneer. Incorrect?
When we “Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.” are we exercising faith? A faith like His? Or somnething else?
David Gadbois said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Ken, your response is telling. Is this, perhaps, why FV has a hard time fitting the active obedience of Christ into their system (when certain FVers don’t deny IoAOoC altogether)? Your formulation only squares up the passive obedience side (atonement).
Jason J. Stellman said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Ken,
When we posit grace as the principle through which Adam would have received eternal life, as you claim FV does, you must also posit the same situation for the second Adam (which the FV, consistently, does).
Now there is no longer any situation in which God’s standards are completely met in a meritorious sense, but instead, after the work (of Adam or Christ) is done, God must mingle his grace with it in order to make it rewardable.
This leaves the door open for our own works to play some role in the whole justification equation. And here, again, the FV is very consistent in their insistence that initial justification is received by faith, but is maintained through obedience, the works of which will contribute to our final justification on the last day.
So I’ll ask you, why is THIS so difficult to recognize as un-Reformed?
Ken Christian said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Ref 47: Agreed David. That’s really the crux of the matter isn’t it? Let’s at least keep this argument centered around that point (how IoAOoC fits in), instead of asserting that FV, by speaking of grace within the CoW, somehow removes the legal dimensions of the gospel.
rey said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:29 pm
“I have not found the FV any more teachable than before.” And maybe they haven’t found you any more teachable than before either.
pduggie said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“Are we co-heirs now because we have “faithfully obeyed” as Adam should have done to reach the same goal?”
No, because Adam’s call to be an heir all to himself qualitatively differentiates the nature of his faith, and his obedience.
“Or would Adam have received the glorious reward through works, while we receive it through faith in the second Adam and his work?”
“through works” for Adam just seems too strong for me. I can’t get over it. I’ll say “on condition of perfect obedience”, but does the confessions require me to say “through works”?
Adam didn’t acquire a wife through works, though if he has copulated with a bear while naming the animals I’m sure Adam would have lost his shot at a wife from God. The worker earns his pay though his works. The inheritor inherits his estate from his father through his fideilty and loyalty, and through the father’s being true to his promises.
We certainly do receive through faith in the second Adam, and God puts within us the legal ground of his bond with us: The Spirit who applies Christ to us.
rey said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Ref #9, “how could Adam have pleased God without faith? Is it a pre-lapsarian situation which makes it possible?”
How could he not have had faith, seeing he spoke with God one on one? Even Cain must have had faith, since he also spoke with God. Yet the book of Hebrews says Cain’s offered was not by faith. It doesn’t say that he didn’t have faith, but that his offering was not by faith. Hence it is not about faith vs no faith but dead faith vs living faith, which brings us back to the question of whether living faith justifies because it is living or just because it is faith, and I think the question is pretty well answered in the example.
Jesse P. said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Question. (Schrute!)
Was Adam required to have faith in the Hebrews 11.3 sense?
Ken Christian said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Ref. 48: This has to be my last post for awhile, but let me try and respond to Jason. He writes:
FV would say the conditions of the covenant are met, just not in a way that would be traditionally defined as meritorious - but I think many FV’ers would agree, in concept, with “pactum merit” as Lane has described on this board.
In my memory, the only person who has said anything remotely resembling the scheme you put together in the above paragraph is Lusk. And I’m not certain he’d be comfortable with your phrasing. Honestly, why don’t you email him and get him to tell us what he really thinks. Real suggestion; I’m not being sarcastic.
As for me, saying Adam would’ve received a gracious reward and thus implying that Jesus did receive a gracious reward does not change that fact that Jesus still did everything that was needed to be done. Thus, all those united to Him by faith alone will receive the same reward He did. What’s so unReformed about that?
David Gadbois said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Ah, yes, pduggie. Jesus as the Successful First Christian. Why don’t we just all join the PCUSA? How is this different from old-timey moralistic liberalism? This is surely where FV’s monocovenentalism must end up.
In Hebrews 12:2, Jesus is the *object* of our faith (”fixing our eyes on Jesus”).
Pduggie said Jesus *is* in Hebrews 12,having done just what the Heb 11 folks did
The saints of Hebrews 11 sat down at the right hand of God?
pduggie said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Bavink on Adam
“In the probation-command the entire moral law was staked on a single throw, as it were, for Adam; for him the former incorporated the dilemma: God or man, God’s authority or his own insight, unconditional obedience or independent investigation, faith or doubt. It was a fearsome test that opened the way to eternal blessing or eternal destruction.”
pduggie said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:47 pm
You can’t have Jesus as an example of faith AND an object of faith, David? What’s wrong with you?
Read v 3: Think of Jesus’ endurance, and endure too. He did it, you can too. You haven’t even shed blood (yet).
tim prussic said,
April 23, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Rey, #50, that’s a bit of an understatement.
David Gadbois said,
April 23, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Pduggie said You can’t have Jesus as an example of faith AND an object of faith, David? What’s wrong with you?
No, you can’t have it both ways *in the covenant of grace*. You can have it both ways with respect to the Christian life, but not with respect to fulfilling the condition of the covenant of grace required of sinners. That is the topic at hand.
BTW, I would say that Jesus is an example of endurance, not an example of faith since “faith” in these 2 chapters is not just a generic trust in God. It only applies that term to saints.
David Gadbois said,
April 23, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Ken said et’s at least keep this argument centered around that point (how IoAOoC fits in), instead of asserting that FV, by speaking of grace within the CoW, somehow removes the legal dimensions of the gospel.
I don’t think this separation is possible. Re-read those sections of Romans that I cited from. Both the active and passive elements are present there, as both an acquital from guilt *and* a positive crediting of righteousness is in view. Not just salvation from wrath and judgement, but the securing of adoption and everlasting life.
Jeff Cagle said,
April 23, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Xon (#26):
This is all quite right, and remember that I said I could agree with you on the two covenants being two indeed (different). Everybody says this that I know of; I’ve really never interacted with a genuine “monocovenantalist” in this debate, ever. As you say, the “path” (of instrumental causation0 that Adam would have walked to attain eternal life is significantly different from teh path we must walk, post-Fall. I agree with that 100%, and I agree that the paths differ in the way that you say.
Outstanding! Can you agree to “Works” terminology in the sense of “the Federal Head does something that acquires the result”? And “Grace” in the sense that “an alien righteousness is given to us”?
I ask this because I think the debate about whether there was grace in the garden and whether there are necessary works in the New Covenant is orthogonal to the issue. Pduggie’s angst in #51 is needless; we aren’t talking about whether or not Adam fulfilled some eternal external standard of meritoriousness that on some cosmic scoreboard corresponds to a prize of eternal life.
Instead, we’re simply saying that Adam, as the Federal Representative, acted in such a way as to deserve wrath. And we receive that wrath “gratis” (”antigratis”?) because he is our head. He acted; we receive.
The distinction is about the Federal Representatives, who work (or “act”, in the equivalent Greek), and the Federally Represented, who receive.
And since we all agree to that concept (right?), then it makes the most sense to leave the Confessional terminology in place and understand it in this way (which is what Westminster was talking about anyways, IMO. Cf. WCoF 7.4).
Jeff Cagle
Jason J. Stellman said,
April 23, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Jesse,
I would say that yes, Adam was required to look to a future reward in hope. But I would qualify that by saying (1). that the reward was not as “unseen” for him as it was for the saints actually listed in Hebrews 11, and (2). Most commentators, like Vos for example, say that the “faith” described in Heb. 11 is not the Pauline “saving faith,” but a forward-looking disposition.
So in my view, Heb. 11 doesn’t bolster the FV claim that Adam and Jesus had to have faith, just like we have to have faith. It’s a confusion of categories.
synthesizer said,
April 23, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Rey,
Cain, obviously came after the fall. He never experienced the relationship that his father Adam had with God prior to the fall. Hence, all the prelapsarian talk now on the board. The FALL changed everything.
pduggie said,
April 23, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Jeff: what’s interesting to me is that the work our federal head does for us, that we receive, still is to be our pattern of action as our faith works itself out in love. We are to sacrifice and bear our cross, because our Lord did.
We are to continue in “mere Christian living faith” (what an amazing neologism?) that bears an uncanny resemblance to the saving faith that incepts our Christian living.
Glad to hear my angst is needless though.
Jeff Cagle said,
April 23, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Paul (#63):
I agree entirely. I would attribute the resemblance to the work of the Spirit: we receive the Spirit by faith; therefore, we walk in the Spirit by faith. As you insinuated, this is the teaching of Galatians.
Elder Hoss said,
April 23, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Jason - My comment to Jeff dealt with the specific issue of Kline’s “snark” (Jeff’s terminology) re Theonomy. Nothing there was said about the wider corpus of his writings. Was that not patently clear from the specific question I posed?
Read it again, and I think you will find this to be the case.
Why then don’t you (or Jeff) address my specific query as to why, if there was such a “substantive” critique of Bahnsen, for example, Kline insisted WTJ not allow Bahnsen to answer the “critique”, or do you (or others) not in fact, have an answer?
My purpose in raising the question is not to defend Theonomy, or even the Bahnsenian tenet of “the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail” (I assume you’ve read Theonomy in Christian Ethics or are at least aware that the first iteration of the Westminster contained theonomic construals later expunged in subsequent editions), but rather to underscore that there appears to be a particular dynamic at work among what has been termed the “TR” on the one hand, and the FV on the other, which mirrors the Kline/Bahnsen chapter. It’s rather sloppy and aphoristic, not dissimilar as well from the kind of hysteria one observes from broad Evangelicals who encounter strong sacramental language in Calvin and experience their own kind of existential meltdown which prevents them from obtaining a more dispassioned assessment of the matter at hand….
Jason J. Stellman said,
April 23, 2008 at 10:36 pm
EH,
Could you point me to an online account or something that outlines Kline’s refusal to be rebutted? It’s the first I’ve heard of it.
While I’m not familiar with the history, I would be surprised if Kline’s reasoning were that he was afraid of a debate (that just doesn’t comport with who he was). Perhaps he felt the WTJ was not the place?
Ron Henzel said,
April 23, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Elder,
What’s patently clear to me is that it’s easy to write the kind of snotty-nosed drivel you churn out on a regular basis while hiding behind a nom de guerre. Why don’t you just be a man and tell everyone who you are?
Vern Crisler said,
April 23, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Re: 34,
I think Tim Harris’s term “sophomoric” is an appropriate term for some of the commentary coming from FVist. It’s almost as if these guys have never opened up a Reformed Systematic Theology before.
I’m not sure an educated clergy is the answer, though. Wasn’t Shepherd educated? And Jordan and Leithart? (Not that I have anything against an educated clergy.)
I think the bottom line is that FVists need to stop thinking of Adam as a Christian who just failed to attend to the means of grace, or failed to kowtow to his elders, so to speak. Adam was not a Christian, and before the Fall he had to merit eternal life by obedience, unlike Christians, who receive eternal life by grace.
Vern
Elder Hoss said,
April 23, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Jason - A good deal of the Bahsen/Kline chapter/debate (or shall we say, “divergence” since no one really wished to debate Bahnsen save for atheists like Gordon Stein or Edward Tabash; one Dispensationalist consented to a debate only on the grounds that it omit cross-examination) is referenced at http://www.cmfnow.com.
I would add an anectdotal remark that you can feel free to discount (or throw out), that 2-3 very anti-theonomic, amillenial brethren I know and respect who studied under Kline, believe that the agreement between Kline and WTJ re Bahnsen was unwise (if not unprincipled), and not in the best interest of a full-orbed discussion of the matters at hand PARTICULARLY when one allows for the fact that before the 1788 revision, the Standards in their original form (23:3) spoke of the duty of the magistrate to extirpate idolatry and promote the peace and purity of the Christian religion.
What is particularly fascinating to note about one aspect of that chapter is that Kline himself admitted that the original version of WCF Ch. 23 was theonomic, and that, as such, critique of theonomy on the basis of the Westminster Standards was a problematic undertaking.
And, as I’m sure you know, Gillespie and a host of other worthies at Westminster extolled positions considered well beyond the pale by today’s Reformed and Presbyterian torchbearers, who yet ironically admit that their own position is effectively CONTRA the original (pre 178
WCF on this specific issue.
All of this offered with the caveat that one of the central tenets of Theonomy viz Bahnsen’s “abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail” is something I find exegetically problematic, just as I find FV proponent’s over-emphasis on covenant objectivity problematic, and TRs’ (”we represent THE single stream of Reformed orthodoxy”
often sacrificing the historia saludis in favor of the ordo saludis problematic as well.
All of this to say that it seems to me that the sloppy and aphoristic critique of a Bahnsen is simply being mirrored in our own current context.
Elder Hoss said,
April 24, 2008 at 12:09 am
Ron Henzel - Pseudonyms, with good reason, actually have had ample presence in a rather important period of church history. It was called the Magisterial Reformation….
Joseph Randall said,
April 24, 2008 at 1:19 am
Pastor Lane (29),
I’m still not sure why you are opposed to seeing Adam’s meritorious works as done by faith (or Fatherly dependence or trust) - especially if you maintian that the basis or ground of Adam’s reward would have been his works? It seems to me for pre-fall Adam, it works like this: you have faith which would lead to works which would lead to justification and the reward. Justification and the reward would come on the basis of the works. After the fall, you have faith which leads to justification which then leads to God honoring good works (and even these good works are tainted with sin and must be washed in the blood of the Lamb).
It seems there must be a way to speak of both pre-fall Adam and Christ as being dependant on the Father and doing works that please the Father. Without faith, no one can do anything that pleases God. Autonomy is sin. Yet Adam and Christ can still exercise faith but receive a meritorious reward not on the basis of their Fatherly dependence but on the basis of their works done by perfectly depending on their heavenly Father?? Yes? No? Why would this position be troubling for you if you keep clear the basis or ground of the reward? Thanks for your help on this.
Jason J. Stellman said,
April 24, 2008 at 1:50 am
Joseph,
I’ll let Lane answer for himself, but I know that many of us FV critics are uncomfortable with the insistence that Adam and Christ “walked by faith plus obedience” because of the conclusions the FV’ists often draw from this idea.
It goes something like this: Adam needed to walk by faith plus obedience. Abraham needed to walk by faith plus obedience. Moses needed to walk by faith plus obedience. David needed to walk by faith plus obedience. Jesus needed to walk by faith plus obedience. And I need to walk by faith plus obedience.
See how the gospel gets lost amid all the faith plus obedience?
Ron Henzel said,
April 24, 2008 at 4:49 am
Elder Hoss,
Regarding your comment 70: if you’re implying that if people find out who you are you might end up being burned at the stake, please allow me to bring you up to date here. Nowadays it’s actually possible to amicably leave your church and find another more congenial to your beliefs, tastes, incessantly whining attitude, or whatever might be driving your choice, rather than pseudonymously sniping at it like a petulant coward.
On the other hand, if you’re implying that your role in the PCA places you and your mission on a par with the great Reformers of the 16th century, please allow me to suggest a psychiatrist capable of prescribing an anti-hallucinogen to deal with your specific pathology.
Ken Christian said,
April 24, 2008 at 6:31 am
Ref 72: Jason - Aren’t you confusing “walked by faith plus obedience” and “justified by faith plus obedience”? Who wouldn’t agree that the Christian walk is a walk of faith and obedience (trust and obey, right?)? And how does anything in what Joseph wrote in #71 lead to justification (for anyone) by faith + obedience? I just don’t see how you get there.
its.reed said,
April 24, 2008 at 8:07 am
Ref. 75:
Ken, I would disagree. You’re statement “walk by faith plus obedience” at the least suggests a relationship between faith and obedience that is heretical.
Strong words, yet I’m not calling a heretic. I’m observing that your language here is very weak. It maybe that you understand the relationship of faith and obedience better than this. Your word choice here is at best inadequate.
Ken Christian said,
April 24, 2008 at 8:17 am
Ref 76 - C’mon, Reed. First off, notice that I didn’t say “walk by faith + obeidence”. I said the Christian walk is a walk by faith and obedience. My word choice doesn’t suggest a thing that’s heretical. If you have a problem with exhorting believers to live a life of faith and obedience the inadequacy is on your end. In addtion, my post clearly distinguishes all of this from our justification that is by faith + nothing.
its.reed said,
April 24, 2008 at 8:35 am
Ref. 77:
No Ken, you said exactly, “walk by faith plus obedience.” I’ve not misread your exact statement in no. 75.
The inadequacy is on your part. Your words do not clarify the nature of the relationship of obedience and faith. Specifically, they leave the door wide open for meanings other than the exclusive and explicit teaching of Scripture, to wit obedience is a fruit that flows from the Spirit via faith.
Your initial statement does not make that clear. Your follow up explanation suggests you are very fuzzy in your understanding here. It is very easy for us to express firm conviction in a doctrine of Scripture without seeing that our actual position is less than the Scriptural one.
Just as much justification, so sanctification: obedience is not necessary for justification or sanctification. Obedience is only necessary as an evidence of the work of the Spirit who unites us to Christ and so brings to life through faith all the panoply of Christ’s blessings, including obedience.
There are two kinds of obedience: that which flows from the Spirit via the walk of faith and that which flows from man via the walk of sight. Your words, “walk of faith plus obedience” do not make it clear which is meant. Plus suggests:
> faith and obedience are two different things with different sources,
> faith and obedience share a similar kind of necessity,
> faith is incomplete without the addition of obedience.
Further, it is all too common in the history of the Church for this formulation to be comfortably used by the Pelagian-Arminian synergistic model. Whether you mean that formally or not is not the issue (I never said nor implied you did). Your words are fuzzy. They are dangerous.
Again, I do not think you mean this. All I’m asking is that you note the fuzziness and remove it. This is not another (supposed) example of of an FV critic misreading and putting words in the mouth of a (supposed but not self-confessed) admirer of the FV. This is one brother admonishing another for the sake of all.
pduggie said,
April 24, 2008 at 8:46 am
“faith plus obedience” is heretical now?
“make every effort to ADD to your faith goodness”
Kevin D. Johnson said,
April 24, 2008 at 8:47 am
Lane,
If you are going to police comments, can you be sure to police all of them…see #74.
And, I think Elder Hoss’ questions deserve attention and an answer whether he has put them forward in a way that you or others feel may be less than amiable. It is a shame that direct questions somehow wind up being seen as offensive in many forums today.
Ken Christian said,
April 24, 2008 at 8:48 am
Ref 78 - Reed, please read again. The statement “walk by faith plus obedience” was a quote from Jason’s previous post. My words were “a walk of faith and obedience”. I purposely chose not to use the world “plus”, like he did, because I thought it communicated the wrong things (like that our obedience could somehow add to our faith, or something like that). I am fully aware that our obedience is not necessary for our justification.
What’s truly dangerous Reed is the way you seem to be reading every possible error into my statements (without first respectfully asking for what you feel are needed qualifiers).
Kevin D. Johnson said,
April 24, 2008 at 8:54 am
Xon,
Are you quite sure there are no more “hard-core” theonomists around? Really?
Elder Hoss said,
April 24, 2008 at 9:11 am
Ron Henzel - The specific concern you raised dealt with the legitimacy of pseudonyms in the context of debate (as presumably your knowing that my name is John Jones Jr. or Thurston Howell III, is critical to the discussion in some mysterious way).
I pointed you to the Magisterial Reformation as providing abundant examples of this. Forgive me, it probably WAS unfair to direct you to anything pre-dating, say, the 1630s, or not solely published by BOT or P & R.
GLW Johnson said,
April 24, 2008 at 9:13 am
Elder Hoss
Let me guess, your Mark T. evil twin?
Xon said,
April 24, 2008 at 9:26 am
Jeff (#61),
Well, I wish we weren’t talking about that, but we in fact are. Many have criticized FVers for their rejection of “merit,” but this is what we are rejecting. So, if that’s so, then where does that leave us?
Again, it’s way down on my list of priorities to argue about what word we should use. I’m fine with calling it a “covenant of works.” I’m not fine with saying that it is ungracious.
Again, I wish federal headship was the whole issue. If it was, then there should be no debate on this. Nobody denies the things you say about Federal Headship. What Adam did, we did. What Christ has done, is also ours. The issue with “merit” and such is about the “terms” and conditions under which the two federal heads related to God. Was Adam supposed to “earn” a reward from God gracelessly, but he failed and so Jesus then earned that reward gracelessly, and “grace” is that God lets what Jesus did count for us? Or are there better ways to think about it? God graciously constituted Adam in a certain kind of life which was blessed, in which Adam would have continued always by further grace if he had obeyed. But he didn’t obey, and so he didn’t continue. But grace was always present, from the beginning. We can distinguish the covenants pre-fall and post-fall in a number of ways, but saying that one was graceless isn’t one of them.
its.reed said,
April 24, 2008 at 9:35 am
Ref. 81:
Ken: I do apologize for my erroneous labeling. I missed the ref. is no. 73, not 72. I do understand that you took Jason’s “faith plus obedience” and read it as faith AND obedience.
Yet you seem to have not interacted with Jason’s criticism of the standard FV fuzziness on the relation of faith and obedience. And this is exactly my concern.
Limit it to your statement, “faith and obedience.” Is it not obvious from Church history that this needs to clarified? If one were speaking with someone whom we know from experience to mean obedience flowing from the Spirit via faith, then a short hand “faith and obedience” is sufficient. If you and I attended the same church and knew each other, most likely I would have sufficent background on your convictions to have soound reason to assume you meant the biblical position.
Yet I would never use such a formula with folks whose maturity I am not aware of. I accept that I owe them as a brother the need to not say anything which would disturb their faith.
Is it not sufficiently demonstrated the an ongoing concern is the lack of clarity when using such terms by FV advocates, or even by essential strangers on a blog?
This is what I am reacting to.
And Paul (no. 79). tsk, tsk. Re-read my second sentence and include the word “suggest” as I did in the original, and you will of course graciously remove your inference that I said what I did not say.
And, I’m sure you agree, what one means by “faith plus obedience” could be heretical. Its all in the details. Again, I’ve not challenged anyone with teaching heresy - just fuzziness.
Why such an admonition so argued against, even if not expressly deserved, I sadly wonder.
Xon said,
April 24, 2008 at 9:38 am
David G (#44),
Sigh. And some anti-FVers seem to think that the claim that FVers contradict themselves amounts to a demonstration that they have done so. Name that tune already. If you think there is a contradiction, then you have to show it. Re: this very thread, Wilson has pretty much shown that Lane’s argument doesn’t work: there is no contradiction b/w the FVJS and the Westminster Confession on the point Lane pointed to. You can disagree with the Joint Statement’s distinction between “works” and “obedience” all day long, but the fact is that the statement explicitly makes the distinction and so reading it on its own terms it is not contradicting the Westminster Standards.
**In case I have never said this plainly enough, David G., let me say it now. Yes, if any person (FV or not) says A (or something that entails A) in one place and then in another place says not A (or something that entails not A), then they cannot innocently claim to “affirm A” and expect to be left alone about the not A stuff they also say. Right, absolutely, always. Now, that said, kindly show where an FVer pulls an “A and not A” regarding some “A” that is a necessary facet of Reformed orthodoxy. And here we are again.
pduggie said,
April 24, 2008 at 9:40 am
Sure ok.
But part of the point is that the bible’s own language should be our touchstone. And Peter is happy to say add virtue to your faith. He isn’t worried about fuzziness.
Xon said,
April 24, 2008 at 9:47 am
Tim Harris’s comment (back in the 30s somewhere) about sophomoric self-taught blog commenters was obviously directed (in part) at my comments (his summaries of the sophomoric reasoning to which he is objecting were summaries of things I had said (in the 20s)). Aside from the fact that I’m on the verge of qualifying as “highly educated” (PhD, 2008), he’s obviously misunderstood the point. I’m fairly well aware of historic Reformed definitions of grace, faith, etc. If he thinks the minutia of the scholastic definitions somehow help his position in this conversation, then let him show forth how they do so. But they won’t help him b/c that’s just not the “level” at which this conversation is taking place.
I say the covenant of works was gracious b/c it involved God’s freely given blessings, regardless of anything worthwhile in Adam himself. Now, if there is some more technical Reformed definition of “grace” that means this STILL isn’t “grace” in that more technical sense, then so what? What’s the point? Am I wrong to use the word “grace” in the simple sense of “unearned gift?” If anything the more technical definition will only validate my point, b/c we’ll realize that htis whole scuffle is much ado about (mostly) nothing. If Lane is dying on the hill of “CoW was NOT gracious,” but he’s using this highly technical definition of grace, while guys like Wilson and I are saying that it IS gracious because Adam would have needed to say “thank you”, then we simply have no disagreement in substance but are dividing over words. Which is bad.
As to why we use a “simple” definition of “grace” (a situation that requires a “thank you’, any unearned gift of favor, etc.) rather than a “technical” one, that is hardly a reflection of how knowledgable or studied we are. If anything, the great error of “sophomores” (i.e. sophomoric arguments) is to learn a technical term and then wiled it like a magic talisman that can ward off all people with whom you disagree. “Oh, see, I’ve got the peripatetic definition of ‘grace,’ therefore the rest of you are all grace-deniers. Back, heretics!” That would be sophomoric, if anyone were actually arguing that way. Is anyone doing so?
Xon said,
April 24, 2008 at 9:51 am
Kevin (#82),
I said there are “hardly” any more “hard core” theonomists around any more. Especially participating in discussions of Reformed theology. Who is a “hard core” theonomy in this class? Jordan? Leithart? Wilson? Those guys are all “post” theonomists of one sort or another, but hardly hard core “you can marry my daughter when you finish reading Insititutes of Biblical Law and submit a 50 page report on it” types.
Ken Christian said,
April 24, 2008 at 10:13 am
Ref. 86 - Reed, I do accept your apology. Allow me to apologize for the mis-numbering.
And yes, I too share your concern for clarity. I would never say “we walk by faith and obedience” to my congregation without having qualified and explained that statement fully.
I feel no need to do so on this board; because I assume most, if not all, of us are ordained ministers and/or elders in good standing within our various Reformed denominations. I also assume that we will show one another the proper ministerial, not to mention Christian, courtesy when engaging one another’s ideas. Such loving courtesy would assume the best of one another and be willing to ask polite questions when clarity is needed. That said, I must confess my own failure from time to time in this regard. I’m seeking to repent of it by God’s grace.
Jesse P. said,
April 24, 2008 at 10:22 am
Jason,
Dont read my question as if I am thinking Hebrews 11 is dealing with faith as it takes hold of Christ in justification. I understand that it is speaking of faith in the mode of endurance (Hebrews 10 makes that plain as introduction-you have need of endurance) and that it is a future oriented faith. I was only responding to the idea that Adam would not have needed any “faith” in the Hebrews 11 sense. If Adam was the last thing created, he surely needs the kind of faith that understands the seen is made by the unseen (11.3, he even sleeps through the Eve ordeal), just as he needs to believe the idea of eschatological reward (the unseen is clearly future events in Hebrews 11, not invisible realities). Now, his basis for that reward and mine will be different…you know personal…perpetual…etc.
Your answer makes my point exactly, this chapter is carrying the water for either side in the way they suppose. I just dont like the “overreading” of a text to try to prove a point.
Jesse P. said,
April 24, 2008 at 10:23 am
change “is” to “isnt” carrying the water…
its.reed said,
April 24, 2008 at 10:44 am
Ref. 91:
Ken: thanks. Yes, I do try to cut appropriate slack to others on this blog. Let me be clear I in no way wanted to impute erroneous convictions or understanding to you.
Rather, being aware of how widely read this blog is, and by many who are less mature in their understanding, I sensed the need to call a time out, as it were.
That’s one of the inherent weaknesses of blogdom. What is the right balance between providiing clarity and assuming pre-understanding?
Thanks again for your sensitivity to my concern. Again, I’m sorry for the confusion I generated in not being as clear as I should be.
its.reed said,
April 24, 2008 at 10:52 am
Ref. 88:
Sure, and Peter is happy to say that because he knew, as do we, that the Author of Scripture ensured that we have enough (special) revelation to remove fuzziness.
Paul, this focuses in one of the key criticisms I have with the FV. There is a propensity for the FV to want to:
> Look at a given text, and to
> Understand a given text, and then to
> Apply a given text,
> in isolation from other texts essential to proper biblical understanding!
This criticism is not reduceable to merely a debate between two different valid approaches to interpretation, systematic vs. the biblical theological approach. E.g., the biblical theology of the OT is not fully understood, and therefore properly applicable, until it is understood in light of the NT.
The same goes for any particular passage. This, for example, is why the traditional FV interpretation of John 15, and the application of a conditional election, is in the end faulty. The FV wants to let such a pasage speak for itself, in isolation from other passages which are essential to clarifying the nature of the conditionality. Even worse, the FV wants to then immediately move to applying this less than complete, this fuzzy understanding of conditional election, to the lives of God’s people.
It is not a red herring, or a knee jerk TR reaction on my part to challenge fuzziness in the phrase “faith plus work.” Neither Peter, any other biblical author, or the Church historic has accepted such fuzziness.
I wonder why you find such willingness to debate what should be a given.
Jeff Cagle said,
April 24, 2008 at 10:55 am
Xon (#89):
He could as easily be talking about me. I have a lowly M.A.R. and naught else.
Elder Hoss (#66):
Sorry I brought it up. It was a lapse of discipline on my part.
Xon (#85):
Well, I wish we weren’t talking about that, but we in fact are. Many have criticized FVers for their rejection of “merit,” but this is what we are rejecting. So, if that’s so, then where does that leave us?
Again, it’s way down on my list of priorities to argue about what word we should use. I’m fine with calling it a “covenant of works.” I’m not fine with saying that it is ungracious.
I think I have an explanation. Let’s see how far I can get during the remainder of lunch here.
The FV has been insisting that “CoW” is an unfortunate term because it *suggests* that Adam could have acquired merit by fulfilling a law.
They point out (rightly, IMO) that Adam’s successful resisting of temptation is hardly congruous to eternal life, and anyways, why would a son need to earn the wages of a hired hand.
Unfortunately, this argument has not had the desired effect. Why not? Here’s my hypothesis: because it’s arguing against the wrong understanding of the term “CoW.”
Bell rang; I have to go teach calculus. More later.
Jeff
R. F. White said,
April 24, 2008 at 11:04 am
Xon, would you tell us how you determined that the term “grace” applied to the pre-fall situation?
Ken Christian said,
April 24, 2008 at 11:15 am
Ref. 95: Thanks, Reed. I completely understand where you’re coming from in reference to clarity to this blog’s readers. As for my future comments, I’m more than happy to take a wider readership into account.
Ken Christian said,
April 24, 2008 at 11:24 am
Ref. 95 again: Reed, concerning your comments on John 15, couldn’t FVists reply by saying they are simply using John 15 to bring clarity to those other passages that discuss conditionality? In other words, why can’t it work the other direction? And who gets to decide which texts are the “starting point” (can’t think of a better way to phrase that) and which texts must be clarified?
Elder Hoss said,
April 24, 2008 at 11:33 am
GLW - When you demonstrate an ability to deal with men and movements you criticize without actually reading (I’m not referring specifically here to the FV, but rather, Nevin/Mercersburg, ala our recent exchange at http://www.reformedcatholicism.com) I might answer whether I’m connected with Mark T, though I suspect that was entirely rhetorical and you knew the answer at the gate before posing it. : O )
its.reed said,
April 24, 2008 at 11:34 am
Ref. 99:
Ken, indeed, not only can it, it should encompass the breadth of Scriptural teaching.
As to the starting point, I do not see this as seminal to the problem I am addressing. The Scriptures, taken as individual units of thought, are mutually clarifying. It is fine to start with either the conditional nature of election in John 15 or the permanent nature of election in John 15. This problems arises with where one stops, not begins.
This is why my first reading of, say Wilson’s RINE arguments on John 15, did not raise my eyebrows. It was only after I read/heard more that I became concerned. It was only after further reading/discussion and listening that I reached my conclusion that the FV interpretation of this passage is faulty because an insistance on interpreting AND applying the passage in isolation from other necessary passages.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
April 24, 2008 at 11:34 am
Gary,
I can verify that Elder Hoss is no Mark T. or his twin brother. He is in fact a worthy discussion partner and it would do participants well to engage in regards to what he has already brought to this discussion. Let’s not use his anonymity as an excuse to avoid interacting properly with him–not that anyone here would do anything like that!
GLW Johnson said,
April 24, 2008 at 11:39 am
Elder Hoss
Ok but do you wear an black rather large Nazi looking head piece with a black cape and talk like James Earl Jones?
Ken Christian said,
April 24, 2008 at 11:45 am
Ref. 101 - Fair enough, Reed. I’d really be interested in further discussion concerning the applications you find troubling. If you ever have some extra time, feel free to ask Lane for my email address; so we can interact some more about this topic.
its.reed said,
April 24, 2008 at 11:46 am
Ref. 104:
Thanks Ken. It most likely will have to wait for a whil