The Trinity and Post-Millenialism
May 16, 2008 at 9:57 am (Federal Vision)
Doug has answered my post here, although he has not answered my comments on this thread.
The comments of Steve W bring up the important question of the nature of a covenant. Is a covenant a relationship, or is it an agreement? All too often, the discussion is skewed from the start by prejudicial terminology like “contract,” which make it sound like a cold piece of business. Agreements, on the other hand, happen all the time between two closely connected or related people. The confessional position is that there is a promise and a stipulation (using the last term in a very large sense, which could include both a condition and a requirement).
Federal Vision advocates deny the logic of the confession when it comes to the Covenant of Works, and whether life was actually promised, whether there actually was an agreement, and so on. Usually it is claimed that there is no Scriptural warrant for this. However, if you follow the logic of the confession (19.1-2) and the WLC 99, what becomes clear is that the threat of death (Gen 2:17)implies the promise of life, and that the same condition applies to both the threat and the promise: if Adam did not obey, then the covenant curse came upon him; but if Adam obeyed, the covenant promise became his. If Adam was in a mutable state, then it would not have been right to retain Adam in a perpetual state of probation. If there was a natural body, then there is a spiritual body, as Paul says in 1 Cor 15:44b. There always was an expectation of something higher. Of course, this is of the nature of a good and necessary inference. However, one of the problems of the Federal Vision has always been a biblicistic undermining of good and necessary inference (whether intended or not), in that systematic theology is viewed as a Procrustean bed upon which the legs of exegesis are sawn off. I strongly differ.
Now, how does this kind of logic apply to the intra-Trinitarian relations? It is quite the wrong conclusion to say that if there was an agreement, then that implies a plurality within the Godhead. The same objection could be made against Ralph Smith’s paradigm. The fact is that either definition of covenant applies to the persons of the Godhead, not to the essence. If this is true, then no such implication of plurality (assuming that means a plurality of essence, though Steve’s comments were rather less than clear on this point) within the Godhead exists. It is a rather simple answer, but none the less powerful for that.
Lastly, on post-millenialism, I don’t really have anything more to add than what I’ve already said. I do have this one question, however. Do post-millenialists believe that all amils are pessimists? I, for one, am not, though I have no illusions as to the nature of persecution.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
Susan said,
May 16, 2008 at 11:34 am
Actually, I did used to think that a-mils were a proper subset of pessimistic eschatologists (I just made up a new word), and as I do have a more optimistic view of the endtimes (thought not an extreme one), I thought post-mil was the closest thing to my eschatological bent. Adrian enlightened me.
Susan said,
May 16, 2008 at 11:34 am
*though
Xon said,
May 16, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Lane,
First, as has been said repeatedly at this point, FVers affirm that Adam was always intended to mature into an even greater/more glorious existence than that in which he was first created. Nobody denies that, in fact it is one of James Jordan’s personal theological projects to affirm it. This is a complete rabbit trail, as far as distinguishing FVers from yoruself (i.e., saying that FVers deny good and necessary inference, as shown by what they do on the issue of the CoW, etc.).
Second, the issue with the covenant of works is one of “merit.” An occasional commenter here aside, nobody denies that there was a stipulation for Adam “don’t eat from that tree”, and that obeying the stipulation resulted in perpetual life (which included maturing into a more glorious form) and not obeying resulted in losing that life. A results in B, and not A resutls in not B. Furthermore, nobody disagrees that Adam, by disobeying, was actually demeriting the life he had been given–i.e., he caused himself to deserve to have that life taken away. But what FVers question is that, if Adam obeyed, he would have been “meriting”/deserving of the future life that he received. That is the question. You have glossed the FV argument here into a straw man, to say the least.
Now, to the Trinity…
The ambiguity here is with “an agreement.” What do you mean? Do you mean that the three Persons simply always were already in agreement with each other? Or do you mean that they somehow “made” an agreement with one another that was not already going on in their eternal ad intra activity? If the former, then you’re agreeing with Steven and I (and Joshua, don’t mean to leave anybody out) in the other thread. If the latter, then you’ve opened up a whole can of worms that we pointed to in that thread. There is no way you can hold to a “covenant of works” as some particular act the three Persons engage in with one another separate from their eternal ad intra activity, and still hold on to all of the following: divine simplicity, genuine unity of the divine essence, genuine plurality of the divine Persons. One or more will have to go in order to accomodate this notion that the three Persons “make an agreement” with each other, an agreement they weren’t already in by virtue of their very nature as a community of loving inter-relationality.
Also, the “Smithian” definition of covenant (a bond of love) does not apply only to the Persons, it applies to the Persons and the essence. The essence of God is to be an inter-relational community of love. It is the essence of God to be three-united-into-one. The divine essence is not some “kernel” within each of the three Persons which is the same for all three of them. It is their existence itself (there is no distinction in God b/w essence and existence, as the philosophers used to say). The manner in which the three Persons exist–as a loving community of mutual inter-penetrating unity–IS the “nature” or “essence” of God. Furthermore, all three Persons are loving in themselves, for each Person “contains” the other two. (As Jonathan Edwards puts it in his Discourse on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit IS the love of God personified, but the Father and the Son both love because the Spirit is IN the Father and IN the Son. Likewise, the Father and the Spirit are both wise/understanding because the Son (the wisdom/idea/word of God) is IN both of them. Etc. Perichoresis means that the WHOLE divine essence is love, AND that each individual Person is love.)
greenbaggins said,
May 16, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I find it fascinating, Xon, that you are assuming the very monolithic nature of the FV that you have repeatedly denied previous to this.
As to your first point, you completely misunderstood the nature of my argument. I was not claiming that there is no eschatology in the FV. I am claiming that the FV denies that eschatological life was *promised* upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. Most FV’ers will object, on the one hand, by saying “Adam already had life” (see AATPC, pp. 122, 124), and then turn around and say that he would “mature,” whatever that means. The FV cannot have it both ways. The nature of the obedience is certainly at issue. So, it is actually you who have shrunk down my argument into something it is not. This sort of addresses your second point as well.
As to the Trinity, it is by no means the case that affirming something of the persons that is not true of the Essence attacks the simplicity of God. We affirm procession of the Holy Spirit as a Person, but we do *not* affirm procession of the essence, unless we are Process theologians. The problem with affirming covenant of the essence is that it *does* imply a plurality *of* the essence, since covenant, by definition implies more than one.
As to the covenant, it was an eternally made (because made in eternity!) pact or agreement that does not belong to the essence of the Godhead. The problem here is that you seem to think that an agreement has to be by nature part of the essence of who someone is. If you take that assumption out of the equation, then no problem exists.
Xon said,
May 16, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Why am I assuming “monolithicity”, Lane? B/c I said that “noone” says such-and-such? Well, that just happens to be true, regarding such-and-such. This hardly proves monolithicity among all of those people. In any case, you can have that argument all day if you want it. It is wrong to say “the FV” about every criticism you make, but there is no problem with critiquing a document that a whole bunch of different guys signed, which is what you’re doing here. And I do think it’s true that a lot of FV guys are influenced by, or for other reasons are just similar to, Smith on the Trinity and covenant. But that’s just one issue. It doesn’t justify treating all FVish people as the same in other things.
Moving on to more substantive things…
Adam already had life, and the life he already had was the sort of thing that would naturally mature over time into something even more glorious. What’s difficult about that as a basic point? How is it “having your cake and eating it too?”
There is little wrong with saying that Adam was “promised” continued life (including the future matured/glorified life that would develop out of it). And your own claim about FV arguments doesn’t cite anyone taking issue with talk of “promise.” In fact, Ralph Smith himself clearly says that stipulations with promises are part of covenants, certainly of coenants involving humans. So I’m just not sure where this is coming from. What FV leading light says, or where in this FV Joint Statement is it said, that God did not “promise” Adam anything in the Garden? But does “promised” mean “you have to earn it?” Or just “it will happen b/c I say so and I’m gracious and kind and this is what I want to happen for you”?
There is simply no contradiction here b/w saying that Adam already had life AND that he would have matured into more glorified life if things had run their proper course, AND that these things wouldn’t happen if he disobeyed, AND that if he had obeyed it would have been all the grace of God (as all good things are) and not something that thereby “earned” Adam something in any “proper” sense of the word “earned.” FVers (in general, as I understand them) say all four of these things. And they are a consistent set of propositions.
This is conceptually jumbled b/c procession is a unique characteristic of ONE of the Persons while covenant/love (assuming the FV position that we are discussing at the moment) is a characteristic of all three Persons and thus of the divine essence itself. Procession is the unique relational “identifier” of the Holy Spirit–that’s what the Holy Spirit IS that makes Him different from the other two Persons. The Holy Spirit is the one God subsisting as God proceeding from God and from God begotten of God. This is not the same situation as covenant, which is not attributed to ONE Person but to ALL of them collectively: the three Persons are in covenant (relationship/bond of love) with each other, and they are this way by their very nature. This is standard post-Nicean patristic theology.
All three Persons are in this relationship of love with one another. That which all three Persons possess must be the essence of the Father. So relationship IS a matter of the essence, whereas procession (which is specific to the Holy Spirit) is not. But this doesn’t imply a “multiplicity of essence,” unless you are now saying that Biblical statments like “God is love” imply a multiplicity of essence? And if that is so, then which Person in particular do you attribute love to? And if you actually think that, then you are by patristic-Augustinian-Nicean standards a heretic. Just sayin’. Semper reformanda and sola scriptura, but if in your effort to criticize Smith you’re going in this direction then we need to be honest about what direction that actually is.
And I’m standing in two threads at once here, so please forgive me if I assume things from the other thread and if I lack clarity for that reason, but the stuff I’ve been saying about perichoresis and so forth (again, standard patristic-Augustinian Trinitarian theology) clears this up, at least as far as the historic position of the Church. I can’t make it not be a mystery any more, of course, but God is three-in-one and one-in-three, and so whichever way you approach Him, you will see both plurality and unity reconciled together. If you try to think of the threeness of the Persons, you will see how they are all one (all three are “in” each other completely and fully, etc.) Yet if you try to think of the oneness, you will see that there are three (the Father generates the Son, and the Father and the Son together process the Spirit.) It is the ONE essence of God to be a three-in-one kind of “being.”
So, saying that God is love/covenant is NOT making a multiplicity of essence b/c what it MEANS to be love is that you have three Persons united together by nature completely, infintiely and eternally. The essence of “Godhead” is to BE three-in-one, which is what love is (per Augustine, medievals like Bonaventure and Richard of St. Victor, Jonathan Edwards, etc.). One essence, which subsists in three relationally differentiated hypostases who each have the fullness of the one essence and who each mutually indwell the others (perichoresis). This kind of essence IS love/covenant. Love is three united as one. (Lover, beloved, love itself).
Perhaps part of the problem is if we try to “isolate” the essence and talk about it without thinking about the Persons…then it sounds like love requires there to be more than one essence, perhaps. But the problem here is that we have no business trying to think about the essence this way in the first place. The divine essence IS the Father, who gives being to the Son (eternal generation) and to the Holy Spirit (eternal procession). They all have the one (numerically one) essence, differentiated relationally as I said above. There is no such thing as a divine “essence” that is independently analyzable apart from the Persons. As soon as we ask about the “essence” of the Godhead, we are talking about Father-Son-Spirit in eternal loving communion. That’s what Godhead IS. The ONE essence IS three-in-one. So I think your criticism fails here, and actually contradicts the tradition. (And I mean the whole tradition: East, West; Cath, Prot; patristic, recent.)
How can the Persons do something amongst themselves that does not belong to their essence? What agreement did not already exist between them that they had to make a pact to initiate it? Here too you are contradicting the historical orthodox tradition, for there simply cannot be any intra-Trinitarian activity that is not essential. To even posit such a thing denies simplicity.
It is one thing to talk about ad extra activity: by definition, this is spontaneous and free activity done by the Persons of the Trinity that is directed at the created world (the act of creating the world itself, redemption of that world, all the individual providences and miracles along the way). It is not necessary for God to do it, and doing it adds nothign to God’s already perfect nature. It is done out of sheer delight, out of the joy of doing it. God delights in seeing His already perfect glory overflow outside of Himself. Etc.
But you’re not talking about ad extra activity (though the confusion here among the contributors to this blog is evident and bears pointing out: David G. is insisting that the CoR is ad extra. You are saying it is ad intra, but non-essential. Neither position is viable, orthodoxly speaking.) You’re talking about ad intra activity. Well, God is simple, and He is “pure act” (actus purus), all that He is, He does; and all that He does, He is. There is no distinction in God between being and doing, or between essence and existence (activity). So anything the Persons do amongst themselves, any ad intra activity, IS essential to God. There is no escape from this if we are to remain historically orthodox. If we don’t wish to remain historically orthodox, then we should make that clear so people don’t think this is just another disptue b/w “TRs” and “FVers” within the Reformed world. It is much broader than that, and the TRs are actually taking the more historically sectarian position if the TRs are wanting to go where you are going on this.
I’m a bulldog on the Trinity, just like you are on the ordo, Lane. Which is not to say that I’ve got it all figured out, b/c I don’t. It is a glorious mystery, and always will be. But there are elements to the historical doctrine as the Church has come to understand it. Let’s not go after Smith unless we have those patristic issues down ourselves. Positing ad intra non-essential divine activity is like a person coming on here claiming to be Reformed but then saying that they don’t believe in predestination. That’s my concern, and I’m sorry I didn’t do my usual quota of emoticons and self-deprecating jokes. I’m in a quasi-hurry, and this is too long as it is to worry with my usual style. So this is a little blunt: but then again the issues we’re discussing are important, no?
Vern Crisler said,
May 16, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Xon said:
“But what FVers question is that, if Adam obeyed, he would have been “meriting”/deserving of the future life that he received. That is the question. You have glossed the FV argument here into a straw man, to say the least.”
And the answer to the question is yes, if Adam obeyed, he would have merited future (eternal) life. Next question.
Vern
tim prussic said,
May 16, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Xon, dang you write a lot. My post here will introduce a slight variation in topic.
Would you give a section of Turretin a read and tell me what you think: Topic 8; Question 3? He makes many helpful distinctions; this section would be profitable for everyone to read.
Turretin certainly makes no bones about the graciousness of the covenant of works. He also defines merit and right within the context of the COW in a way that should be savory to all of us (all except anyone who want to find strict merit/justice). Let me know what you think. You, too, Pr. Lane. I’m interested to hear your thoughts.
Vern Crisler said,
May 16, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Andrew Sandlin writes on his blog:
“Nonetheless, we are convinced that the scholastic formulations of these and other doctrines, while useful and necessary at the time, are less useful and necessary today and, in any case, a few do not accurately duplicate Biblical teaching. Some examples include the identification of the papacy with the Antichrist in the original Westminster Confession of Faith [I agree]; the isolation of the doctrine of justification from an earthly, covenantal context and from “the obedience of faith”; the over-emphasis on the theoretical and judicial elements in the Bible and an under-emphasis on its practical and experiential side; and the general lack of acknowledgement of the broad, orthodox catholic tradition.”
More Federal Vision distortion of Reformed theology. Instead of being catholic Reformed, maybe Sandlin should think more about being faithfully Reformed.
Vern
Jason said,
May 17, 2008 at 1:09 pm
“there simply cannot be any intra-Trinitarian activity that is not essential”
This is simply false and contradicts 2000 years of orthodox Theolgy, e.g. though God’s eternal decision and decree to create is an intra-Trinitarian activity it is not however of the divine essence, God was in now way bound by his nature or essence to do so. Traditional Theology distinguishes God’s opera ad intra and opera ad extra, insofar as the latter respect creation they are ‘non-essential’ howbeit they are eternal. Xon’s points are in no way related to the ‘historical orthodox tradition”. The Covenant of Redemption is eternal and is made between the person’s of the Trinity, however as it is made respecting the elect, it is thus of the opera ad extra and not essential to the divine nature. There appears to be some carelessness when it comes to the use of the word ‘essential’ when talking about the Trinity. I have noted that on the FV side some have univesally equivocated ‘essential’ with ‘of the essence of’. In other words they say since the Covenant is essential it belongs to the divine essence, thus preying on the gut reaction of Reformed minds. Of course we want to say the Covenant is essential, but essential to what is the question often left unasked. The Covenat is essential to our redenption, essential to the operation of the created order as we know it, it is essential to our pressent relationship to God, but this is not the same as saying it is essential to God in se or to his nature. So this is one instance of confusion spawned by FV.
Mark Horne said,
May 17, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“I am claiming that the FV denies that eschatological life was *promised* upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.”
And your claim is false. Your own alleged justification for your claim equivocates between life (which Adam did indeed already have) and eschatological life (which was promised him upon condition of personal and perfect obedience).
Again and again you show a preference for hobgoblins of your own mind rather than the real people you claim to be addressing.
Xon said,
May 17, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Jason, how can the Persons engage in a non-essential activity amongst themselves and yet God remain simple?
Vern Crisler said,
May 17, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Re: #10
Mark Horne’s FV sophistry.
Mark, one of your own FV colleagues, Xon, says, “There is simply no contradiction here b/w saying that Adam already had life AND that he would have matured into more glorified life if things had run their proper course, AND that these things wouldn’t happen if he disobeyed, AND that if he had obeyed it would have been ALL THE GRACE OF GOD [emphasis added] (as all good things are) and not something that thereby “earned” Adam something in any “proper” sense of the word “earned.” FVers (in general, as I understand them) say all four of these things. And they are a consistent set of propositions.”
This is the evil doctrine that you and FVists are attempting to introduce into Reformed theology — that Adam’s obedience would have been by grace. How many more times does this have to be pointed out that this is what you are teaching? That’s why Reformed theology insists on the covenant of works, in order to guard against this Romanist super additum thinking.
Vern
Jeff Cagle said,
May 17, 2008 at 10:16 pm
…nobody denies that there was a stipulation for Adam “don’t eat from that tree”, and that obeying the stipulation resulted in perpetual life (which included maturing into a more glorious form) and not obeying resulted in losing that life. A results in B, and not A resutls in not B.
That’s a good starting point. Lane, I have understood the pactum merit position to be the following:
(1) God laid a stipulation upon Adam, and
(2) Had Adam obeyed it, then God would have granted him eternal life, and
(3) Therefore according to the condition of the pact, Adam would have been said to have “earned” or “merited” eternal life.
In other words, I have read pactum merit to mean “acquire by fulfilling the stipulated condition.”
Is that too weak? Would you add anything in addition to this?
And Xon, assuming that this is what Lane’s pactum merit means, do you object to the concept in any way, leaving aside the term itself?
Jeff
Xon said,
May 17, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Jeff, that concept doesn’t bother me in any way shape or form. Acquiring something by fulfilling a condition is how the world goes round.
Jason said,
May 18, 2008 at 2:03 am
Xon,
Re: #11 That doesn’t make any sense. Is the decree to create an inter-personal communication within the Godhead, yes. Is the decree to create one and the same with the divine essence, no. Does this interfere with the doctrine of divine simplicity, no. Covenant is no more essential to God than creation, yet both are freely grounded in the divine nature. How can the activity that the Persons engage in amongst themselves respecting the creature be part of the divine essence and yet God be free? This is not possible. What warrant do we have for saying that any of the modes or manners of relationships that obtain between God and the creature are materially identical to the divine essence, none. We say however that the created order reflects or exemplifies the divine in a finite, limited and creaturely way.
Re: #14 Does the same apply to redemption? If so how?
Mark Horne said,
May 18, 2008 at 9:03 pm
“This is the evil doctrine that you and FVists are attempting to introduce into Reformed theology — that Adam’s obedience would have been by grace. ”
Vern, you don’t know the difference between good and evil. God judge between us and your words.
Xon said,
May 18, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Jason, I think your own comments run aground on the same mystery that mind might have. Again, the problem is a vague concept like “necessity” which we try to apply to God who is the source of all being.
First, you still haven’t answered my question in #11, except to say that you don’t think the question itself makes sense. Here you have simply asserted what I already understood your position to be, which is precisely what I was challenging with my question in #11. I asked you how the Persons can engage in an ad intra activity that is non-essential and yet God remain simple (since there are now two activities going on in the Godhead, ad intra…thus God has “parts” and simplicity is denied).
As to the last sentence, this is the same mystery I have expressed in my own comments expressed from your own persepctive: “Covenant is no more essential to God than creation, yet both are freely grounded in the divine nature.” First, I would dispute that covenant is no more essential to God than creation, since I believe covenant is best understood as Calvinist shorthand for the eternal bond of love between the Persons (thus, covenant IS essential to God, since God is love). Second, your claim that creation (to focus on that which we both agree is ad extra) is “freely grounded in the divine nature” simply illustrates the mystery about understanding necessity/spontaneity. Yes, creation is an ad extra activity freely engaged in by God whicn in no way “adds” anything to His essence and which He did not ‘have” to do. But the fact that it is, as you say, “grounded in the divine nature” means that it flirts with our human categories of “necessity” and “essentiality” despite your best efforts to expunge the terms.
In other words, I agree with you that creation is freely grounded in the divine nature. But then that makes creation, in some sense, “necessary.” Is God the KIND of being who freely makes a finite world to reflect His glory, or not?
How can the activity that the Persons engage in amongst themselves respecting each other be part of the divine essence and yet God be “free?” The way you set up the issue it seems that to have an essence at all is to lack freedom, for if a thing acts in accordance with its nature then it is not free to do otherwise. This is a modern trap that I have fallen into many times myself: it’s just how our minds “groove” in this day and age about these questions. I think the classical and medieval (including the Reformers as “medieval” here) Christian thinkers had a better angle on understanding these things, but it is very hard for us to recreate it in our own minds. True “freedom” is not simply some “ability,” but an actual exercise (I say this of human as well as divine freedom). Freedom does not mean, for instance, that I am able to choose to drive well or poorly; it means that I drive well. To be free is to actually exist in the excellent way that you were designed to exist. The raw ability to choose is responsibility, not freedom. This is the Augustinian/Anselmian/Thomistic/Calvinian (I would argue) way to think about these things.
God is free because He is not bound to any prior necessity; rather, He is the source of all necessity Himself. But the things God does ad intra are essential to Him. Again, I suppose you could continue to press me for footnotes here, but this is the ’standard’ classical theology. Perhaps the inherently analogical nature of our language about God is tripping us up here, and so words like “essential” and “nature” and “necessity” all need to be taken with a grain of salt. But we have to speak of these things somehow. When we finite creatures reflect upon the revelation God has given us fromt he perspective of our finite minds, we have language and thoughts that can only take us so far. God is the source of all that is ‘necessary,’ and so it is really not possible in any proper sense some of the things He does and say that they are “necessary” and then isolate other things and say that they are not. We can do this somewhat with the ad intra/ad extra distinction. But as soon as you step into the “ad intra” mode of thinking it is incoherent to then try and say that some of the divine activity in that mode of thought is non-essential. This undermines one of the points of positing the distinction in the first place, for if there are non-essential activites in God ad intra then it serves us no purpose to posit an ad extra revelation that somehow points to what God is “really like” ad intra. Because even some of the thigns God does ad intra are not what He is “really like,” either, if He engages in arbitrary activity that is separate from His essential nature/activity.
Last sentence: absolutely. First sentence: the problem is that we (me, Steven, Joshua) are not saying that “any of the modes or manners of relationships that obtain between God and the creature are materially identical to the divine essence.” That is not what anyone has said. To claim that we are saying this is to confuse the ad extra activity of creation with the ad intra decree to create. You began your comment in a way that indicated you are not confusing that distinction; but here the spirits of the polemical moment perhaps got the better of you? (Believe me; I’ve been there…)
tim prussic said,
May 19, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Vern (# 12), what gives? Is not a voluntary condescension on God’s part “gracious”? Did Adam DESERVE the covenant of works? Did he have the right to demand that God come make covenant with him? The answers to these questions are self-evident.
Beyond that, however, one must distinguish ‘twixt redemptive and non-redemptive grace, the second of which some call “goodness,” which is fine. To call the COW gracious in the redemptive sense would be a mistake; but in a non-redemptive sense quite correct (again, see the passages recommended from Turretin in post #7).
One must see that by creation and providence (that is, “nature” - which is gracious in the non-redemptive sense), Adam could indeed discharge the duties given him by God, while his fallen sons never could. If one should maintain that Adam needed grace beyond creation and providence to keep the terms of the COW, I should think that a mistake. Adam, by nature, could trust God and obey him. We, his sons, must have a further work of grace (beyond nature) in us so that we can have faith and obey. While Adam trusted God (took him at his word), we must have a much more specific faith, which is a redemptive gift of God that includes trust.
Mark Horne said,
May 19, 2008 at 2:59 pm
#18 To elaborate, I have always understood “grace” to be defined as “unmerited favor.” If someone wants to use it exclusively as “favor in the presence of demerit” that’s fine, but there is no Biblical, nor Confessional Reformed, demand to do so.
In fact, the NT uses the word charis to even apply to God’s attitude toward Jesus!
Vern Crisler said,
May 23, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Re: #16
Mark Horne said:
“Vern, you don’t know the difference between good and evil. God judge between us and your words.”
Mark, your FV mind tricks won’t work here. Even if your ad hominem were true, it would make your doctrine any less evil.
#18
Tim,
A “voluntary condescension on God’s part” is a species of common grace. (FVists make it sound as if they’re the first to discover the concept of divine condescension, or common grace.) But how does common grace save anyone?
We don’t need any of Mark’s wicked teachings:
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/mark-horne/covenant-of-works
Rather, we need more of Lane’s sound doctrine:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/a-gracious-covenant-of-works/
Vern
Jeff Cagle said,
May 24, 2008 at 10:23 am
Vern, I don’t think it’s a fair accusation. I disagree with Mark’s formulation, and I’ve said as much to him. But in the article you linked to, he explicitly denies what you’ve labeled as “Romanist super-additive thinking.”
Perhaps he’s inconsistent in doing so. Or perhaps he’s trying to forge a third way. But he’s not arguing, “Adam didn’t merit, so therefore we have to.”
If Kline is correct, then Mark’s thinking will lead to that point. But Kline was speaking of a monocovenantal denial of the CoW, which is not a feature of Mark’s thought.
Just a plea for precision and charity as we guard the flock.
However, I do agree with you that common grace within the CoW is not salvific.
Jeff Cagle
Vern Crisler said,
May 24, 2008 at 11:29 am
Jeff, Horne’s conclusions in his article were:
“[I]t is entirely unjustified and implausible to say that (1) Adam was supposed to earn or merit future glory from God according to the terms of God’s covenant with him….” Also, “Adam did not need his sins forgiven as Noah did, but the glory promised him was no less an unearned gift. Adam was disinherited (until and unless God saved him through Jesus Christ) not because he failed to earn anything but because he was an unbeliever. He believed the serpent rather than God and thought his future hope lay in the path of disobedience (Genesis 3).”
Thus, there was no real covenant of works after all. Underlying this is the assumption that Adam had faith, and his sin was a lapse of faith, and this is essentially a super additum view.
I admit FVists put a premium on confusion and unclarity, so they don’t always draw the inevitable conclusions from their premises. But Reformed people should be about clearness and soundness of doctrine, especially if they are teachers, and especially if the doctrines are Reformed theology 101 — i.e., the basics.
Vern
Jeff Cagle said,
May 24, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Thanks for the clarification. I understand your position better now. Here’s what R. Scott Clark has to say about superadditum.
(It’s a fascinating and helpful article IMO).
Do you discern in Mark’s article a view that Adam was created with a deficiency remedied prior to the fall by superadded grace? I read Mark as saying that Adam was created in a certain relationship to God — a gracious, covenantal relationship, instead of a works relationship — that was forfeited by his disobedience. (Again, I disagree with this position…)
I agree on the need for clarity.
Grace and peace,
Jeff Cagle
Vern Crisler said,
May 24, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Jeff, a “gracious, covenantal relationship, instead of a works relationship” is a super additum concept. Again, Reformed theology 101.
Vern
Xon said,
May 24, 2008 at 9:44 pm
What is the thing that is “super addited” on the view Jeff has described, Vern?
Vern Crisler said,
May 24, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Xon,
The super additum concept is grace before the fall. Reformed theology 101.
Xon said,
May 25, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Vern, that maketh no sense. You yourself described super additum above, and more importantly the “historical theology 101″ textbooks describe super additum, as a concept in which nature is deficient and grace is something that is added on to bring it up to snuff. The entire discussion presupposes a nature/grace dichotomy, where nature is one thing and grace is another (and “grace perfects nature”, as we have all heard before and as you yourself have cited the view).
This is not the “FV” view. Read Leithart’s stuff on “natural law” and nature-grace stuff. FVers who have commented on the matter have uniformly rejected the nature-grace dichotomy altogether.
Nobody here is teaching that grace is something “super added” onto nature. Rather, we are saying that nature IS gracious. To be the kind of thing God made us to be is ALREADY gracious. That is “grace before the fall,” but it is not a “super additum” view of grace. B/c grace is not being “added” on top of what nature already provides. Grace is already present in what nature provides. And it is historical theology 201 (probably a sophomore-level class, I reckon) that there have been Reformed folks who speak of grace before the fall.
Vern Crisler said,
May 26, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Re: 27
Pure sophistry. Typical of FV. To say that nature is gracious is just to commit the same error, in different words. Get thee to a Reformed systematic theology, Xon. Stop listening to all this idiotic FV stuff.
Vern
Jeff Cagle said,
May 26, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Well, I’m far from FV, and I’m not fond of sophistry (Lord willing!). But I think you’re mistaken, Vern. The problem with the syllogism,
“The super additum concept is grace before the fall.”
is that the word “grace” has had several definitions over the centuries. In the context of the Roman medieval theology, “grace” meant “an influence from God that corrects a defect.” In was in that context that the superadditum concept was born. And it was this definition that the Reformers opposed.
But the definition that one finds commonly preached today is, “unmerited favor.” I myself find this definition too broad (lacking any reference to sin), but I can’t prevent other people from using the word grace in that way.
Now look at what Calvin had to say:
“But knowledge of ourselves lies first in considering what we were given at creation and how generously God continues his favor toward us, in order to know how great our natural excellence would be if only it had remained unblemished…” (Calvin, Inst. II.1.2)
“But thereafter ambition and pride, together with ungratefulness, arose, because Adam by seeking more than was granted him shamefully spurned God’s great bounty, which had been lavished upon him.” (Calvin, Inst. II.1.4)
It’s clear that Calvin believed Adam had received “unmerited favor” from God, but saying so (or calling said unmerited favor by the word grace) doesn’t make Calvin a superadditivist!
Nor Murray, who explicitly calls any covenant a “sovereign administration of grace and promise” — which would include the covenant with Adam.
Nor Lane, who says these things:
(Concerning Robert Rollock):
(concerning Doug Wilson):
And then Lane goes on to explain that acceptance of this kind of grace need not deny the basic pactum merit nature of the Covenant of Works. And I fully agree with him.
The point is, Vern, that not all kinds of “grace” before the fall constitute a superadditum concept.
Does Mark conflate common grace with salvific grace? I think so, to the extent that he argues from grace in the garden to the absence of any works principle whatsoever. So I disagree with him. But he’s not advocating Romanist superadditum. Again, this is an appeal for charity and precision.
Grace and peace,
Jeff Cagle
Xon said,
May 26, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Thank you, Vern. I will resume my standard policy of interacting with you.
David Gray said,
May 26, 2008 at 7:37 pm
>Pure sophistry. Typical of FV.
Do you have a sense of irony?