# The Federal Vision, Chapter 5, James B. Jordan.



## Dan.... (Feb 19, 2005)

Having heard so much here about the Auburn/Federal Vision contraversy, I decided to get a copy of the book, _The Federal Vision_ and read it from the horses' mouths and see what all the fuss is about...

I just finished reading chapter 5 this evening. The title of James B. Jordan's chapter is:

_Merit Verses Maturity: What did Jesus Do for Us?_

I am shocked, to say the least. I expected what I found in the first four chapters of the book. There is plenty of info on the web that discusses the F.V.'s views on the covenant, the church, election, and the loss thereof ("_If they [the elect] later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect - they...lose their elect standing_", F.V. pg. 58), the sacraments, etc.... 

I wasn't expecting Chapter 5.

I was hoping that some of you who have read the book can help me to make sure I understand this position. Here is what I'm getting out of this chapter:

1. He doesn't approve of the "Covenant of Works", because Adam could never have merited eternal life. He may have received eternal/glorified life as a gift of grace, contingent upon obedience,but he could never have become worthy of eternal/glorified life.

2. He believes that God would have allowed Adam to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil once he had reached maturity. In eating of the Tree prior to reaching maturity Adam usurped kingship before it was granted to him. Had Adam fully matured by continued faithfulness, he would have been allowed to eat of the Tree. Once he ate of the tree, he would have died, just as God said, but God would have resurrected him to a more glorious life.

3. He believes that, even if Adam had not sinned, the Second Person of the God-head would still have become incarnate and would still have died. The Bride (though also sinless) would also need to experience death at the Tree of Knowlege (pg. 188) and would then have experienced the Second Ressurection.

4. He denies that the work of Christ merited the glorification of Himself and His Bride ("_The language [merits of Christ], however, has the subtle effect of creating the idea that Jesus in His life on earth somehow earned or merited by works His translation into glory. We have seen, however, that such a notion is quite foreign both to the Adamic Covenant and to the rest of the Old Testament._" F.V., pg 192).


- He can't be serious??? 


Is this guy alone on this, or is this the majority position of the F.V.?


Also, concerning Adam being allowed to lawfully eat of the Tree of Knowledge had he persevered, is this something the F.V. guys dreamed up, or has this been the position of anyone else in history?



[Edited on 2-20-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2005)

Others in the federal vision deny a Covenant of Works, but I don't think they take it as far as Jordan does. Ralph Smith, rightly or wrongly, denotes several positions within the FV.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 19, 2005)

Jordan is a vertiable fountain of errors. 

Dan, take a look at the footnotes in the other chapters, especially Lusk's. You won't see many quotes of Calvin or the Reformers, but tons of Jordan and Leithart.

Here's a shorter essay on the same subject by Jordan:



> Maturity, Not Merit
> "What we have received from Jesus is not a collection of 'merits,' but rather His maturity."
> James B. Jordan
> The problem with the "covenant of works" notion lies in the fact that it is linked up with merit theology. There is no merit theology in the Bible. Merit theology is a hangover of medieval Roman Catholicism.
> ...



Such stuff is drivel that poses for "striking new insights."


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 19, 2005)

> He can't be serious???



Yes, unfortunately he is.

When you mess up the ATTRIBUTES of God (i.e. the Law), everything goes caput! 

That is why they *just do not understand the Bible.*


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 20, 2005)

Thanks guys. Thanks Fred for posting a summary article.

I re-read the chapter again tonight and came up with a list of the following 10 errors inconsistent with Reformed Orthodoxy taught in this chapter alone (I wouldn't be surprised if I missed more errors):

1. Denies "Covenant of Works" because eternal life cannot be merited by obedience. pg. 153

2. Christ provides maturity, not merit. pg. 155

3. God would have allowed Adam to lawfully partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. pgs 160,165,174,175,180,186,187,188,189

4. Death is not necessarily the result of sin. pg. 160

5. Adam had already died and had been resurrected to a fuller life before breaking the law of God (in the "deep sleep" in which Eve was taken from his rib). pg. 160

6. Had Adam lawfully eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, he would die, but God would have raised him to a more glorious life. pgs. 164-165,174,175,180,186,187.

7. Even if Adam not fallen, Christ still would have been incarnated and would have died (via Tree of Knowledge) to bring His bride to final glorification. pgs 184-188.

8. Christ did not merit eternal glorified life for Himself or for His bride. pgs. 192-193.

9. Applies Luke 17:10, "We are unworthy slaves" to Jesus Christ. pg. 193.

10. Denies the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to His elect. pg. 194.

[Edited on 2-20-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## DTK (Feb 20, 2005)

The complaint against the terminology of merit on the part of the FV men is (as they would refer to some of us elsewhere) subconfessional, as can be seen in the expression of the Westminster Standards below.


> WCF 17:2 This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
> 
> WLC Question 55: How does Christ make intercession?
> Answer: Christ makes intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it applied to all believers; Answering all accusations against them, and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services.


Thus, it is at the very least the invoking of a double-standard when they accuse others of being subconfessional.

In a public release of Pastor Wilson’s examination before his CRE Presbytery, one can see how he misapplies a quote from Calvin as though it supports his rejection of the idea of merit being applicable to Christ’s work...


> *CRE Presbytery:* 16. Have you read Westminster Seminary’s “Our Testimony on Justification”? With which part do you disagree? Please explain the nature of your disagreement.
> *Doug Wilson:* Yes, I have read that document also, and my objections are two-fold. First, as a treatment of false doctrine that threatens the gospel, it was far too general. They lumped together and attacked ecumenism, the New Perspective, and certain unnamed persons within the Reformed world. They said the purpose of the testimony was primarily directed at this third group, and outlined nine distinctive features of this teaching, with no citations. Though I was obviously included by them as a member of this group (as is clear by listening to the Westminster conference tapes on this subject), I only recognized my position in one of the nine doctrines they identified. That one place where they accurately identified my position was #5, “that the idea of merit as a way of explaining the work of Christ for us is unbiblical.” And as far as that goes, I agree with Calvin’s statement in the Institutes, where he said, “I ask, what need was there to introduce the word merit, when the value of works might have been fully expressed by another term, and without offence?” (3.15.2)



But when you examine the the quote he cites from Calvin in its context, Calvin is rejecting the idea of the merit of “work righteousness,” not the idea of merit in application to Christ’s person and work...


> *John Calvin:* I must first make these prefatory remarks concerning the term “merit”: whoever first applied it to men’s works over against God’s judgment provided very badly for sincere faith. Of course, I would like to avoid verbal battles, but I wish that Christian writers had always exercised such restraint as not to take it into their heads needlessly to use terms foreign to Scripture that would produce great offense and very little fruit. Why, I ask, was there need to drag in the term “merit” when the value of good works could without offense have been meaningfully explained by another term? How much offense this term contains is clear from the great damage it has done to the world. Surely, as it is a most prideful term, it can do nothing but obscure God’s favor and imbue men with perverse haughtiness.
> I admit that the ancient writers of the church commonly used it, and would that they had not given posterity occasion for error by their misuse of one little word! Nevertheless, in some passages they also testify that they did not intend to prejudice the truth. For in one place Augustine speaks thus: “Let human merits, which perished through Adam, here keep silence, and let God’s grace reign through Jesus Christ.” Again: “The saints attribute nothing to their merits; they will attribute all to thy mercy alone, O God.” Again: “And when man sees that all the good that he has, he has not from himself but from his God, he sees that all that is praiseworthy in himself arises not from his own merits but from God’s mercy.” You see that Augustine, when he has denied to man the power of well-doing, also overthrows any worth of merit. Moreover, Chrysostom says: “Our works, if there are any that follow the freely given call of God, are repayment and debt, but God’s gifts are grace and beneficence and great generosity.”
> But laying aside the term, let us rather look at the thing itself. Previously, indeed, I cited a statement from Bernard: “As it is sufficient for merit not to presume concerning merit, so to lack merits is sufficient for judgment.” But he immediately adds his interpretation, in which he sufficiently softens the harshness of the utterance by saying: “Accordingly, take care to have merits. When you have them, know that they have been given. Hope for fruit, the mercy of God, and you have escaped all peril of poverty, ungratefulness, and presumption. Happy is the church that lacks neither merits without presumption nor presumption without merits.” And a little before, he had abundantly shown the godly sense in which he had used the word. “For why,” he asks, “should the church concern itself with merits when it has a firmer and more secure reason to glory in God’s purpose? God cannot deny himself; he will do what he has promised [cf. 2 Timothy 2:13]. Thus you have no reason to ask, ‘By what merits may we hope for benefits?’ Especially since you hear: ‘It is not for your sake... but for mine’ [Ezekiel 36:22,32 p.]. For merit, it suffices to know that merits do not suffice.” _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book III.15.2, pp. 789-790.


In fact, elsewhere Calvin *affirms* the language of merit as applicable to Christ’s person and work...


> *John Calvin:* By way of addition this question also should be explained. There are certain perversely subtle men who — even though they confess that we receive salvation through Christ — cannot bear to hear the word “merit,” for they think that it obscures God’s grace. Hence, they would have Christ as a mere instrument or minister, not as the Author or leader and prince of life, as Peter calls him [Acts 3:15]. Indeed, I admit, if anyone would simply set Christ by himself over against God’s judgment, there will be no place for merit. For no worthiness will be found in man to deserve God’s favor. Indeed, as Augustine very truly writes: “The clearest light of predestination and grace is the Man Christ Jesus, the Savior, who brought this to pass by the human nature that was in him, through no preceding merits of works or of faith. Answer me, I beg of you, whence did that man deserve to be the only-begotten Son of God, and to be assumed into unity of person by the Word co-eternal with the Father? We must therefore recognize our Head as the very foundation of grace — a grace that is diffused from him through all his members according to the measure of each. Everyone is made a Christian from the beginning of his faith by the same grace whereby that Man from his beginning became the Christ.” Likewise, in another passage: “There is no more illustrious example of predestination than the Mediator himself. For he who made righteous this man of the seed of David, never to be unrighteous, without any merit of his will preceding, of unrighteous makes righteous those who are members of that Head,” etc. In discussing Christ’s merit, we do not consider the beginning of merit to be in him, but we go back to God’s ordinance, the first cause. For God solely of his own good pleasure appointed him Mediator to obtain salvation for us.
> *Hence it is absurd to set Christ’s merit against God’s mercy. For it is a common rule that a thing subordinate to another is not in conflict with it. For this reason nothing hinders us from asserting that men are freely justified by God’s mercy alone, and at the same time that Christ’s merit, subordinate to God’s mercy, also intervenes on our behalf. Both God’s free favor and Christ’s obedience, each in its degree, are fitly opposed to our works. Apart from God’s good pleasure Christ could not merit anything; but did so because he had been appointed to appease God’s wrath with his sacrifice, and to blot out our transgressions with his obedience. To sum up: inasmuch as Christ’s merit depends upon God’s grace alone, which has ordained this manner of salvation for us, it is just as properly opposed to all human righteousness as God’s grace is.* _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book II.17.1, pp. 528-529.
> 
> *John Calvin: For if righteousness consists in the observance of the law, who will deny that Christ merited favor for us when, by taking that burden upon himself, he reconciled us to God as if we had kept the law?* _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book II.17.1, pp. 528-529.


This is a specific example of how Calvin is often misused by them.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 20, 2005)

Thanks for those Calvin quotes David. Calvin indeed is so misused.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 20, 2005)

These guys will get all over you for using "Scripture proofs" to make a point. Its tooo sysytematic! The Bible should not be used as a collection of propositions, so they say. But don't they love to use Calvin, Turretin, or anyone else that they can take out of context as their own "Scripture Proof"!


----------



## DTK (Feb 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> These guys will get all over you for using "Scripture proofs" to make a point. Its tooo sysytematic! The Bible should not be used as a collection of propositions, so they say. But don't they love to use Calvin, Turretin, or anyone else that they can take out of context as their own "Scripture Proof"!


Dear Wayne,

I too have been accused of “proof-texting” from both Holy Scripture and John Calvin by men of this persuasion. Now, I understand that proof texts can and are used wrongly on occasions. But I also recall that we have an excellent precedent for this practice in the Lord Jesus Himself, who on one occasion offered three proof-texts to the Devil who in turn was thus defeated into retreat. Isn’t it interesting that even the Devil himself is not nearly so fastidious as our post modernist friends?

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> Isn’t it interesting that even the Devil himself is not nearly so fastidious as our post modernist friends?



That's really what it comes down to isn't, postmodernism.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 20, 2005)




----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 20, 2005)

Or perhaps a neo-mediavel-scholasticism?


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 20, 2005)

Read the excellent points that FJ De Angelis makes here in response to the latest claptrap from Andrew Sandlin:

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/2005/02/the_high_price.html


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 20, 2005)

What is the non-presbyterian view of the CoW? How would a Lutheran/Baptist/Methodist approach this doctrine?


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



David,

Don't feel alone. Been there and am still doing that.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> What is the non-presbyterian view of the CoW? How would a Lutheran/Baptist/Methodist approach this doctrine?



The Lutherans generally reject it, prefering "law" but sometimes they will define "law" the same way we would CoW. The Bapsists are scattered between the Calvinists and Arminians. The Methodists the same as the Baptists.

Read Berkof. There's generally two views, the Reformed, and the Arminian, if they hold to any view at all. The arminian argues the covenant was completely abrogated after Adam's fall. The Reformed argue that the CoW is still in effect, though not as a means of eternal life to individual sinners.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Feb 21, 2005)

Patrick,

You lost me on referring to FV people as "postmodern"...could you elaborate a little? I think i have a different definition/understanding of pomo. 
I always equated it with a fundamental adherence to absolute relativism, arbitrary ethics and humanism to the max.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SmokingFlax_
> Patrick,
> 
> You lost me on referring to FV people as "postmodern"...could you elaborate a little? I think i have a different definition/understanding of pomo.
> I always equated it with a fundamental adherence to absolute relativism, arbitrary ethics and humanism to the max.



Christopher,

While not specifically Federal Vision, I believe it will be helpful for you to see (without even any need for comment) how postmodernism is described and treated by the Reformed Catholicism blog:

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/2005/02/postmodernism.html

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/2005/02/one_of_the_best.html

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/2005/02/on_postmodernis.html

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/2005/02/on_real_clear_t.html

Let me know what you think when you are done.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Feb 21, 2005)

Thanks Fred.

I have to get out of this computer lab (here at school) and my computer at home bit the dust last week so it might be a while before i can reply.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SmokingFlax_
> Thanks Fred.
> 
> I have to get out of this computer lab (here at school) and my computer at home bit the dust last week so it might be a while before i can reply.



No problem.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 30, 2005)

Just a bump to see if Christopher has a response. I was reminded by the new Jordan thread.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Mar 31, 2005)

No ('sorry Fred...) ...I haven't yet gotten to reading those articles as I've been totally swamped with school work. I printed them out and they're sitting on a desk at home...but I have to wait till I get a breather from this crazy schedule (which probably won't be till the end of this semester).

I truly intend on understanding this issue though as my understanding is very weak here and I see these guy's names pop up frequently...and it helps me to hammer out and define my own understanding of theology -which is always for the better.

Please accept my apologies...I will respond in time. thanks again.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SmokingFlax_
> No ('sorry Fred...) ...I haven't yet gotten to reading those articles as I've been totally swamped with school work. I printed them out and they're sitting on a desk at home...but I have to wait till I get a breather from this crazy schedule (which probably won't be till the end of this semester).
> 
> I truly intend on understanding this issue though as my understanding is very weak here and I see these guy's names pop up frequently...and it helps me to hammer out and define my own understanding of theology -which is always for the better.
> ...



Christopher,

I hear you well -- I have the same problems. No hurry, I was just reminded because of the other thread.


----------

