# Federal Vision and Commonalities



## Romans922 (Sep 16, 2005)

I am a little new to FV and I had a question concerning it.

Specifically (besides Jesus, etc.), what do those who believe in FV have in common with R. Catholics?


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 17, 2005)

Anyone?


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 17, 2005)

they're both heretics


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 17, 2005)

"When exegetes and dogmaticians get together it is noticeable that they tend to sniff suspiciously at each other, as dogs do, uncertain whether they can be friends." 
--J.I. Packer


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> there both heretics



I've been reading into this issue, and I just don't see the big fuss. I don't understand how they are anti-gosple either. Most the Federal Vision guys preach sound sermons and I know Schlissle has a very healthy church. That is doing many good things in advancing the gospel. I can't believe has harsh and arrogant some of you guys have been.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



What have you read?


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 17, 2005)

Whroof-Whroof 

***sniffing***


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> I am a little new to FV and I had a question concerning it.
> 
> Specifically (besides Jesus, etc.), what do those who believe in FV have in common with R. Catholics?





> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> I am a little new to FV and I had a question concerning it.
> 
> Specifically (besides Jesus, etc.), what do those who believe in FV have in common with R. Catholics?



Specifically (besides Jesus, etc.), what do those who believe in FV have in common with R. Catholics? [/quote]

There are at least 4 ways in which the FV (I understand that the FV is a loose affiliation, but for the purposes of discussion I'll treat them as a group) is like Rome: 

1) They both think of the prelapsarian state in similar ways. For Rome and for the FV Adam was in need of grace by virtue of being human. This is because Rome thinks of grace as perfecting nature. They think of salvation as a matter of "being." As creatures we lack being or divinity. What we need is divinity. We get this by grace. Before the fall we were given "super added grace" to help us keep our natural concupiscence (sinful desires) under control. At the fall we lost that grace. So the fall was a fall from grace not just a violation of the law.

Thus Jordan and Barach, two prominent FV writers, speak of Adam's need for "maturity" not "obedience to the law." This sets the stage for the confusion of grace and law. They uniformly deny the traditional Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works.

For both Rome and the FV the state (or covenant) of grace is both a matter of grace and law unto final justification (see below). 

The confessional Protestants, in contrast, did not think that Adam was in need of grace before the fall because nature, before the fall, is not defective. We deny that we had concupiscence before the fall. For us, grace renews fallen nature. For the orthodox Reformed, law is one thing, grace is another. The covenant of grace, relative to justification, is not legal. The second Adam fulfilled the covenant of works on behalf of his people. This is the legal basis for the covenant of grace.

2) Both Rome and the FV speak of baptism and union with Christ in similar ways. 

According to Rome, baptism initiates one into the state of grace and one remains in the state of grace by cooperation with grace or faithfulness. 

This is almost exactly how the FV fellows speak. They speak of baptism uniting every baptized person ("head for head") to Christ and initiating one into the covenant of grace in a provisional way. The baptized must remain in the covenant of grace by "faithfulness," or by "trusting and obeying." It is possible to lose what one was actually given in baptism and thus to fall from the covenant of grace.

According to the confessional Reformed, baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, a recognition that one is in the covenant of grace. It does not unite every baptized person to Christ. 

See: http://www.modernreformation.org/Ref-RomeChart1.pdf
http://www.modernreformation.org/Ref-RomeChart2.pdf

3) A third similarity between at least one of the FV authors and Rome is the denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Of course Rome has condemned imputation in favor of infused righteousness. One of the more visible proponents of the FV, Rich Lusk has utterly and publicly repudiated the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. 

4) Finally, several of them have taught the doctrine of a two-stage doctrine of justification. Rome teaches that the baptized person is initially justified until he falls from the grace of baptism. 

After confirmation life is a journey toward eventual justification at the judgment when God declares one fully sanctified (usually after purgatory) and therefore justified. 

Some of the FV partisans teach that, there is an initial justification by grace through faith (or faithfulness) and a second whereby, at the judgment, believers will be justified partly on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ and partly on the basis of intrinsic sanctity and righteousness. 

Hitherto no confessional Protestant theologian or confessional document has taught anything other than a definitive, single-stage, justification. We do teach that there will be a vindication at the judgment, but that is qualitatively different from justification. Vindication is a recognition and validation of what was already declared on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness.

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 17, 2005)

Dr. Clark's analysis is well done and very accurate.

I think that part of our problem as Protestants is that we do not understand (or really make any attempt to understand) the complex and well-thought out doctrines of Rome. We think we can get away with just saying _"Rome teaches salvation by works."_ when in reality it is not that simple. That is why we don't see the commonalities FV has with Rome, because the crass "salvation by works" summary is insufficient. Rome's commonalities with FV are more along the lines of the way they view the covenant, assurance and the like (again, read Dr. Clark's well reasoned post).

It is also important to remember that this is a new trajectory of theology (not completely new, since it has historical roots, including the Mercerberg theology of the 19th century and the Tractarian movement, but new on the present scene). So we have not really seen the "fruit" of this theology yet.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> We think we can get away with just saying _"Rome teaches salvation by works."_ when in reality it is not that simple.



Rome teaches "fath + works = justification"


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 17, 2005)

trinity, incarnation, personal return of Christ


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



It is actually much more complicated than that. If you ever get into an argument with a good Roman apologist and use that accusation, you will get your head handed to you.

Not that you are wrong at the most "bottom line" level, but it is much more complicated. Do you know about congruent and condign merit? Donum superadditum? Nature vs. grace? What is exactly meant by supererogation? What role grace plays in the Roman system? How they view the covenant?

The point I am making is that Rome's error is not simple. We think it is, and then when FV guys say things like, "We believe in grace" or "salvation is by grace" we think that they must be on the right track, when in reality Romanists say the same thing. If you ask a Romanist how one is saved, he would say "by grace through faith." The problem is that he won't use the word "alone" and he means something different by faith (read: faithfulness) and something different by grace (read: a substance).


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Thank you Fred, that was very helpful.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 17, 2005)

Donum superadditum? Please translate for the poor barbarian! Thanks!


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 17, 2005)

Thank you Dr. Clark.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



John Wesley preached good sermons, too. What have you read? Have you studied scholarly works on both sides of the coin? What constitutes a healthy church? (cough.. sound doctrine)


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



I agree with you, so far. But then I've only read a couple books on the subject. I'm still waiting to find something that screams "heresy! heresy!" --- I don't see what the big fuss is about either. (I was angered by one chapter written by Wilkins, but instead of putting him down publicly, I personally contacted him to ask questions first. After getting some of those questions cleared up, I stopped believing that he was saying anything heretical, even though I still disagreed with his approach.) It would be nice for some people on this board to take the time to correspond with some of those guys to ask for clarification wherever they think there is a major problem. While I disagree with a number of their conclusions, I have yet to read something that appears damaging to the Gospel. --- A lot of people are really quick to call it heresy, even though no General Assembly (that I know of) has come down with such a ruling. Right now, there are some individuals who love it, individuals who hate it, and then people like me stuck in the middle saying "what's everybody fighting about, anyway?"


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 17, 2005)

> "Take any religion and test it by this standard: Is it characterized by man or by God? If it elevates man, if it exalts man, if it deifies man, if it glorifes man than it's not the true faith. If it exalts God, if it gives God the glory, if it puts the diadam upon the crown of Christ than that must be the true religion."



-Rev. Ian Paisley, Free Presbyterian Church, Ulster


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > "Take any religion and test it by this standard: Is it characterized by man or by God? If it elevates man, if it exalts man, if it deifies man, if it glorifes man than it's not the true faith. If it exalts God, if it gives God the glory, if it puts the diadam upon the crown of Christ than that must be the true religion."
> ...





Good quote!


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Donum superadditum? Please translate for the poor barbarian! Thanks!



The super-added gift. It has to do with the image of God in man, what is needed for salvation and hence what will be in the state of glorification

Here's one explanation:



> What, precisely, does it mean to have the image of God? From their classes in Christian doctrine students learn that there are at least two answers to this question. One is principally Roman Catholic, though some Protestants also hold it; the other is Protestant, or more specifically, Reformed. Because this theological disagreement has implications for psychology and education as well, we will discuss it here.
> 
> According to the Roman Catholic view, the image of God is something added to human nature. Man is a unity composed of an immortal soul and a mortal body which together constitute the whole of his humanity. By nature man has mental and physical powers by which he lives harmoniously with himself and the world, but which by themselves do not make him religious. The image of God on the other hand, is an added gift (donum superadditum) given to man over and above his natural gifts; this is a gift of grace by which man becomes godlike and hence religious. Having the image of God, therefore, is not essential to being a human being; according to the Roman Catholic, man is not intrinsically a religious being.
> 
> ...


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 18, 2005)

That sounds like the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. _Donum superadditum_ has some concomitant doctrine that exalts man's will...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 18, 2005)

> Rome teaches "fath + works = justification"



Not exactly. Rome teaches justification by grace (see the sixth session of the Council of Trent) AND cooperation with grace. It is the conjunction that causes the problem. It is the conjunction that caused us to stress the SOLA in sola gratia and in sola fide. 

It is this "cooperation with grace" that the Reformers called "works." As Fred says, they were correct to say that because, according to Rome, we do have to cooperate. Our works are essential to justification, but according to Rome they are empowered by grace. So, the Roman system is a gracious system, but it is also as Warfield says, a synergistic system. Fred is quite right to say that the Protestant short hand critique of Rome can mislead and thus cause us to miss the errors of the FV. 

This is the difference between the Protestant definition of faith as an extraspective (outward looking) trusting and resting in Christ and his finished work and the Roman definition of faith as sanctity. For Rome, there are three theological virtues: faith, hope, and love. Rome has it that there are two stages to faith, unformed (at baptism) and "formed by love" (that is sanctity). So Rome says that faith justifies BECAUSE it works (as does the FV). We say that faith justifies because it looks to Christ and his finished work. That's why the Westminster divines were so careful to say "resting" and "receiving." We say that we are sanctified BECAUSE we are justified. These two systems are absolutely opposed.

For Rome (and for the FV) sanctification IS justification. 

Rome rejects the Protestant view and the FV fellows are not content with the traditional Reformed doctrine that justification PRODUCES sanctification; Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. They call that "easy believism." Sadly, they cannot tell the difference between Martin Luther and Zane Hodges.

rsc


----------



## Poimen (Sep 18, 2005)

For those who have no problem with the Federal Vision, have you read the "Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons."?


----------



## Robin (Sep 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > Rome teaches "fath + works = justification"
> ...



I just attended a RC funeral (for an infant) and the priest said this: we are granted the blessings of salvation IF we cooperate with the grace given by Christ by maintaining good works. He also stated that the child (infant) was in heaven because he had "not yet sinned." He then reminded the parents if they wanted to see him again they must be careful to continue in good works.

Robin


----------



## Poimen (Sep 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> He also stated that the child (infant) was in heaven because he had "not yet sinned."



What happened to original sin? Or was the child baptized before he died?


----------



## Robin (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



I don't know... The weeks-old child had a failing heart. I expect last rites may have been administered.

r.


----------



## pduggan (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> [
> I don't know... The weeks-old child had a failing heart. I expect last rites may have been administered.



Why is that? That would have little relevance, as baptism would be seen as sufficient to restore the child to pre-fall original righteousness.


----------



## rgrove (Sep 19, 2005)

Unbaptised infants are said to be in "limbo" by the RCC now. So if the priest said he's in heaven the only way that could be taught as certainty is if he was baptised. The last rights may have been administered more for the parents than anything else. Ceremonies that tell the natural man that the person will go to heaven regardless of anything else are comforting to them. 

My grandfather was always insistant upon Last Rites in life, but as he died the ceremony never brought him comfort. He was petrified of death to the very end.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 19, 2005)

But if a priest says that, it is true.


----------



## Scott (Sep 19, 2005)

What are good sources for explaining what Roman Catholicism teaches (including Fred's list of terms) and contrast with reformed positions?


----------



## AdamM (Sep 19, 2005)

Scott, Dr. Clark has produced a very helpful chart that can be downloaded from the links below:

http://www.modernreformation.org/Ref-RomeChart1.pdf

http://www.modernreformation.org/Ref-RomeChart2.pdf


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 19, 2005)

You can always look up stuff in the Catholic Catechism as well. That's is considered an official doctrinal statement.


----------



## Scott (Sep 20, 2005)

Patrick: It is a godo resource. I have looked over the provisions on this issue and I find the CCC a bit vague on this topic (could just me me).


----------



## JohnV (Sep 20, 2005)

Thank you Dr. Clark and Mr. Greco. Those posts were very helpful.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 23, 2005)

Firstly let me say that not all FV writers and teachers have the same view of the state of Adam. So so clarification is needed on Dr. Clark's part to provide, at least some names. 

Second, the perspective on the original covenant between God and Adam which has been presented here is slippery. Dr. Clark fails to demonstrate how it is that the Gracious version of the Adamic Covenant necessarily has direct link with the Roman Catholic's "grace" to begin with. He assumes that the mention of grace in the original covenant means that it is similar, but the gracious rendition found in the writings of James Jordan and others bears very little substantial resemblence. Passing over the gracious "CoW" and the RC original covenant of course will not allow for a more detailed and informative comparison because the comparisons are very, if I may say so, superficial.

Plenty of respectable Reformed theologians are comfortable with calling the original covenant gracious (John Murray, G.I. Williamson etc), and not merely as a concession. By gracious they mean "undeserved". Grace means kindness, but we Reformed people rightfully like to keep our terms sterile, and so we prefer not to call God's kindness towards Adam grace because it may sound RC. The grace being used in the gracious treatment of the CoW found in Jordan's writings is not describing the RC model with Adam created like an animal and then God plugging an "Image of God" add-on into his system. The grace involved in Jordan's writing is a consistent observation about creation and providence in general as welll as the particular covenantal friendship Adam was created in as a son is created in fellowship with his father, mother, brothers and sisters, and crazy aunt. The gracious CoW view has no super-added grace because they share the Reformed view of Adam's nature prefall.This being the case they cannot share more than the most superficial similarities with the RC view. If anyone feels that the mere mention of grace in Adam's relation with God still sounds RC at this point...then I can't help you.

Adam was not on his own in anything he needed grace. Grace is needed because we are creaturely, and we don't deserve for God to condescend on his part towards people who are so much like withering grass. Further the position Jordan argues for pictures Adam working towards maturity, not towards merit as in the RC and Reformed position. He is growing into the covenantal status he is supposed to have. Not gaining God's acceptance or "right standingness" (righteousness) as in the RC and traditionally Reformed view. In the RC and traditionally Reformed view God is nuetral towards Adam until Adam fulfils the law and becomes righteous by merit, works. The view that Jordan describes puts Adam in a friendly relationship with God from "birth" and Adam is righteous straight out of the box. So if I may, the traditional Reformed view is very RC at this juncture.


----------



## AdamM (Sep 23, 2005)

> Adam was not on his own in anything he needed grace. Grace is needed because we are creaturely, and we don't deserve for God to condescend on his part towards people who are so much like withering grass.



A couple quick questions:

- So creation was in need of grace before the Fall? When God pronounced creation as good, he didn't mean completely good? Grace is needed not necessarily because of sin, but rather creation? 

- When Christ, the second Adam comes, does he need grace too just like the first Adam did? 

- Does Christ, as the second Adam merit anything?


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 23, 2005)

Adam you are still thinking of grace as something needed because of human inadequacy. Grace is seen in providence all across the board not just in redemptive acts. Adam was good, but it was still gracious (undeserving kindness) for God to covenant with him.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 23, 2005)

> *II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,[2] wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity,[3] upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.*[4]
> 
> _[2] GAL 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
> 
> ...



[Edited on 9-23-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 23, 2005)

When Christ the second Adam comes he prays, eats, sleeps, and enjoys shelter. If you use grace in the broad sense that I do, then yes Christ enjoyed God's grace. If you prefer to use grace as strictly redemptive then you will have to say no, Christ did not. Being human means that we need God to provide for us, to be benevolent to us. Our very sustainment is a gift. 

As for your second question I think that it must be said that Christ did accomplish salvation for the believer through his perfect life and his definite atonement for his sheep. The notion of earning right standing with God however is foreign to the bible. You cannot earn God's favor or else it ceases to be favor, strictly speaking.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 23, 2005)

> The notion of earning right standing with God however is foreign to the bible. You cannot earn God's favor or else it ceases to be favor, strictly speaking.



I don't think Adam "earned favor" before God. I don't believe that is what the Confession teaches, either. Could be a semantics issue, but I'm not sure. I'll let one of the more experienced WCF-thumpers answer you if they desire.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 23, 2005)

Adam's sin was the fruit of a lack of faith in God's word, a direct rebellion. I essentially agree with this text Gabe has quoted though I would modify the statement to clarify that Adam and his posterity were in life and good standing with God already. Hence the need of Christ to put us to rights with God again through his life, and death. Then Christ brings us into the kingship Adam was meant to attain over creation in a truly glorious fashion by sitting on his throne and making us citizens in heaven.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > The notion of earning right standing with God however is foreign to the bible. You cannot earn God's favor or else it ceases to be favor, strictly speaking.
> ...



Well no one believes Adam earned anything. He failed.  Hence redemptive history. hehe

The argument is over whether Adam was supposed to earn right standing. I would say that Adam was created good, and was in covenant with God. Created worshipping God, and therefore was in right standing. Not nuetral, not simply "innocent"(which some take to mean a blank-slate of ethics...neither good nor bad) but actually in right standing before God his Covenant Lord.

I have no intention of arguing with the WCF. Further reading would have to be seen to see this doctrine articulated but I think that many of their sympathies would tend towards a merit scheme with Adam earning life which is why the term probation is so appropriate for them.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> . . . I essentially agree with this text Gabe has quoted though I would modify the statement to clarify that Adam and his posterity were in life and good standing with God already . . .



The WCF makes note of this already, I believe, in Chapter VI (helping us to understand Chapter VII, the very next Chapter, much better). It says:



> *I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[1] This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.[2]
> 
> II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,[3] and so became dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]*



So there shouldn't be any editing necessary. As long as the Confession is read all the way through, this idea which you note (and it is an important one for sure) is put forward quite clearly, I think. 

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 23, 2005)

Excellent.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Excellent.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Firstly let me say that not all FV writers and teachers have the same view of the state of Adam. So so clarification is needed on Dr. Clark's part to provide, at least some names.



I have in the past, but I find it tends to distract folk from the issues at hand. We "named names" during the Justification Conference and we do also interact at length with virtually every FV author in the forthcoming book. I recognize that the FV is a loose affiliation of likeminded folk. I tried to communicate that fact, but this is email, not a published monograph.



> Second, the perspective on the original covenant between God and Adam which has been presented here is slippery. Dr. Clark fails to demonstrate how it is that the Gracious version of the Adamic Covenant necessarily has direct link with the Roman Catholic's "grace" to begin with.



My contention (what constitutes "demonstration" in this context?) is that both the FV and Rome share basic assumptions. Jordan and Barach's "maturity" seems indistinguishable from the traditional medieval view. 



> He assumes that the mention of grace in the original covenant means that it is similar, but the gracious rendition found in the writings of James Jordan and others bears very little substantial resemblence.



Have you read Thomas' account of the donum super additum? Do you understand what he said and why? I contend that the theological (not personal) motives are remarkably similar. I address this below.



> Plenty of respectable Reformed theologians are comfortable with calling the original covenant gracious (John Murray, G.I. Williamson etc), and not merely as a concession.



As I have pointed out many times before, this is a 20th century anomaly. Prior to the 20th century virtually no confessional Reformed theologian was willing to speak this way (of a gracious prelapsarian covenenant). There was a minority among the British Reformed and I can't think of any on the continent. 

It seems strange that we should leverage and entire tradition with a handful of modern writers, however reputable. Why do they automatically superscede Witsius, Turretin, Polanus, Wollebius and the writers of our confessional documents?

The attempt to associate Murray with the FV fails on the face of it. Yes, Murray had qualms about the covenant of works, but he would never accepted the notions of "maturity" (in place of merit) or baptismal union with Christ, temporary faith, temporary union, temporary justification etc. 

Murray was a strong and unequivocal champion of the historic doctrine of justification on the ground of the imputation of the active obedience, a notion flatly repudiated by a number of FV writers.

Murry knew nothing of the FV doctrine of faith in the act of justification as "faithfulness." Finally, he was unequivocal about the necessity of the distinction between law and gospel which every FV writer I've read regards as a solely "Lutheran" idea. 



> The gracious CoW view has no super-added grace because they share the Reformed view of Adam's nature prefall.This being the case they cannot share more than the most superficial similarities with the RC view. If anyone feels that the mere mention of grace in Adam's relation with God still sounds RC at this point...then I can't help you.



Inherent in the notion of maturity rather than the legal notion of merit is the idea that Adam was lacking something. This notion that Adam was defective, hence in need of maturity in order to enter consummation is grounded in the same neo-Platonic (Plotinian) scheme that under girds the Roman doctrine of salvation from nature. 

This is precisely why our confessions say that Adam was "righteous" (notice they don't say "immature") and "holy" (they don't say he was defiled). What God established was a legal test that Adam was qualified and able to pass by virtue of his creation. He wasn't needy. We might say God freely and even graciously made the covenant of works, but as a legal, probation (which is a notion held almost universally in the church since the earliest fathers) grace cannot be rightly said to be involved.

This is why, as I've said repeatedly to all who will listen, the divines did NOT use the word "grace" to describe the covenant of works. They said "voluntary condescension." They turned not to our lack of divinity or lack of maturity but to God's free will in establishing a legal test.

What Jordan and others do not seem to realize is the theological consequences of setting up a gracious covenant of works. First it's an oxymoron. Second, it conflates grace and works. Third, it jeopardizes the legal and meritorious work of Christ for us.

The truth is that, having been influenced by the modern turn away from the legal in favor of relational categories, some of our pastors and theologians have flatly and publicly rejected "merit" as category. The Reformed confessions, in contrast, have the highest regard for "merit" and regularly describe Christ's work as "meritorious" because they taught that the fulfilled a legal covenant of works thus making possible a covenant of grace for sinners. 

The FV is anti-confessional. It is nothing less than a competing system of soteriology premised on a competing hermeneutic (the dubious and discredited old German notion of "Hellenism v. Hebraic" views of God and salvation).


----------



## AdamM (Sep 23, 2005)

Ian, to reject the concept of Christ´s merit is in my opinion to reject the foundation of Reformed, Biblical soteriology. I pulled a few of these examples from the Westminster California Testimony on Justifcation: 

Westminster Standards 

WCF 17,2: ""¦the efficacy of the * merit and intercession of Jesus Christ"*

WLC Q and A 55: "Christ maketh intercession"¦in the * merit *of his obedience and sacrifice on earth"¦."

WLC Q and A 174: ""¦feeding on him by faith..., trusting in his * merits *"¦."

Canons of Dort

Rejection of Errors II, 3: Dort rejected the error of those "Who teach: That Christ by his satisfaction *merited * neither salvation itself for anyone, nor faith"¦."

Rejection of Errors II, 4: ""¦we by faith, in as much as it accepts the * merits of Christ, * are justified before God and saved"¦."

Belgic Confession

Art. 35: ""¦Christ communicates himself with all his benefits to us, and gives us there [at the Lord´s Supper] to enjoy both himself and the * merits * of his sufferings and death"¦."

Heidelberg Catechism

Q and A 21: ""¦everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of * Christ´s merit."*

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 23, 2005)

Mr. Clark you are still failing to explain the actual similarites between Jordan's view and Aquinas. You are just restating your conclusion which is not a functional argument. 

Nextly, mentioning Murray's problems with the CoW is not the same as saying he was a card-carrying member of the Federal Vision. I must confess that I tire of people exploding when someone states a fact about someone's opinion. Yes he did question the CoW, does that mean that the very mentioning of this fact necessarily means I'm saying that Murray is the father of the Federal Vision? Of course not. 

"Inherent in the notion of maturity rather than the legal notion of merit is the idea that Adam was lacking something. This notion that Adam was defective, hence in need of maturity in order to enter consummation is grounded in the same neo-Platonic (Plotinian) scheme that under girds the Roman doctrine of salvation from nature."

You are using overheated language. Calling Adam defective, and lacking maturity are two dramatically different concepts. Telling your son he can't have a girlfriend because he's not old enough isn't the same as saying that he's a broken heap of junk. 

"This is precisely why our confessions say that Adam was "righteous" (notice they don't say "immature") and "holy" (they don't say he was defiled)."

I'm having difficulty seeing what your point is here. The FV also says that Adam was righteous and holy. They do not say that he was "defiled" and I don't see the relationship between righteousness and immaturity that you are contrasting.

"What God established was a legal test that Adam was qualified and able to pass by virtue of his creation. He wasn't needy. We might say God freely and even graciously made the covenant of works, but as a legal, probation (which is a notion held almost universally in the church since the earliest fathers) grace cannot be rightly said to be involved."

Adam wasn't needy? Are you serious? What did Adam have that was his own? Did Adam sit on a plane of mutual self-referential bliss with God? Give me a break. Further I have no problem affirming the legal nature of the Adamic Covenant but to say that grace cannot be involved shows the exact rigidity and lack of the familiarity with the meaning of the word grace that I explained above. Grace has a wider definition then you are allowing for because it won't fit neatly in your personal lexicon. As David sang: What is man that thou are mindful of him? Adam didn't deserve God's covenant relationship with him, he didn't deserve whatever gift God would give him and his posterity.

Luke 17:10 So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty. 

If this text can't help us warp our minds around the biblical notion of serving God then nothing will be more clear. Why question Witsius? I love Witsius. But Witsius is not scripture. His ideas are fallible explications of the infallible Word of God. He is an important guide. The divines should be taken seriously, but not as the ultimate word. The Federal Vision corporate is not anti-confessional. The FV corporate does not have any other soteriology other than the same tried and true salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Gabe, to reject the concept of Christ´s merit is in my opinion to reject the foundation of Reformed, Biblical soteriology. I pulled a few of these examples from the Westminster California Testimony on Justifcation:
> 
> Westminster Standards
> ...



Adam, I have already firmly stated that I agree with Christ's accomplishment of redemption. We cannot equivocate all uses of merit. Here the authors mostly use it as much to say purchased or accomplished which I whole-heartedly embrace. Just because the word is present doesn't mean the same concept is being handled. 

At the same time the notion of Christ's obedience being necessary to make us in right standing in the imputative sense is I think highly questionable. I hold that:

a-- Adam was righteous before the fall.
b-- Adam fell warranting death and became corrupt, and totally depraved in his being
c--Christ dies to destroy the debt, thus reconciling us with God
d-- Reconcilition i.e. right standing
e-- further we are joined to Christ and preserved by his Holy Spirit and eventually glorified
f-- thus we pass beyond Adam's righteousness into a permanent state of unity with God

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Ianterrell]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 23, 2005)

There is also an underlying assumption by some that somehow a meritorious and legal relationship is some how incompatible with a relational covenant view. The example of marriage is enough to refute such a false dichotomy. In fact the historical "legal" view of the covenant understands that it is this legal pact both with Adam and Christ which secures the relationship with those whom they represent. A view of the covenant which denies these legal parameters is similar to a couple fornicating together because they "love" eachother, without a garantee for the relationship.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> a-- Adam was righteous before the fall.
> b-- Adam fell warranting death and became corrupt, and totally depraved in his being
> c--Christ dies to destroy the debt, thus reconciling us with God
> ...



Christ's atonement makes us "not guilty" before God, but it doesn't count us as righteous without Christ's obedience and righteousness being imputed or counted to us in justification. Otherwise, what happens to us before we're glorified? Are we in limbo until we get our glorified bodies? We can't get into heaven without righteousness, and being "not guilty" doesn't make you righteous. Also, I would hope you aren't saying our personal merit and righteousness increases after conversion to make us right before God?? Sanctification is not justification.


----------



## AdamM (Sep 23, 2005)

> Adam, I have already firmly stated that I agree with Christ's accomplishment of redemption. We cannot equivocate all uses of merit. Here the authors mostly use it as much to say purchased or accomplished which I whole-heartedly embrace. Just because the word is present doesn't mean the same concept is being handled.
> 
> At the same time the notion of Christ's obedience being necessary to make us in right standing in the imputative sense is I think highly questionable.



Hi Ian,

I am not equivocating on the term merit nor do I think the confessions are unclear on the subject. Looking at the sections below along with earlier material I posted, the standards have the condign merit of Christ which He earns as the obedient second Adam (by fulfilling the terms of the COW), being imputed to the believer (COG). Again, I don´t think the confessions and catechisms are unclear or vague about this, it´s the basic framework of historic, reformed soteriology, inline with the use of the term merit by Dr. Clark. Since on this list, we begin with the assumption that the reformed standards are an accurate summary of what the scriptures teach, the burden lies with you to prove that the standards are in error, not vice versa. 


WCF 11, 1 -3

1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ´s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God. 

2. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love. 

3. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father´s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them; and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners. 

WLC
Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God´s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone. 

Q. 71. How is justification an act of God´s free grace?
A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God´s justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> There is also an underlying assumption by some that somehow a meritorious and legal relationship is some how incompatible with a relational covenant view. The example of marriage is enough to refute such a false dichotomy. In fact the historical "legal" view of the covenant understands that it is this legal pact both with Adam and Christ which secures the relationship with those whom they represent. A view of the covenant which denies these legal parameters is similar to a couple fornicating together because they "love" eachother, without a garantee for the relationship.
> 
> [Edited on 9-23-2005 by puritansailor]



Please explain how merit finds its place in a marriage relationship? I'm not following you.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> ...



You have fallen precisely into the problem of abstracting the concept of being not guilty, as if it means something less than right standing. Being not guilty means being righteous. Innocence (not guilty) and righteousness are one and the same.

Acts 20:28
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Romans 4:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Salvation does not come by works, either ours or Christs. Christ's obedience leads to our salvation and secures our righteousness, by his being a perfect sacrifice and a perfect ransom for the elect. 

Romans 5:9
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

There is no in between state from guilt- to nuetrality - to righteousness.

Ephesians 1:7 We have salvation through his blood. No mention is made of salvation through his works. Eph 2:13 we are brought into God's covenant and made saved by his blood. Reconciliation comes through his blood, peace by his blood (Col 1:20) This is the ground of eternal redemption (Heb 9:12-14) We have confidence to approach God based on the blood (10:19) We are sanctified by it (Heb 13:12) Christ is our Shepherd by it (13:20).

1 Peter 1:18-19 says that it ransomed us. By being baptized into the death of Christ we are united in eternal fellowship with the Father (Rom 6:8-10) There is no condemnation in him (8:34). Justification is not by the law, but by Christ's death (2:21). We are not in limbo when Christ washes away our sins. When our High Priest cleanses us we are made whole.

Lastly I have no idea how you misconstrue my statements as making our final salvation based on our own merits. I have said many times already that merit doesn't factor into our "getting into heaven". Our heavenly citizenship is founded upon the limited atonement. Sanctification and justification are intimately related but we are justified by having a saving, living and obedient, faith which alone saves us by its utter dependence on Jesus Christ the one who died for our sins.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 23, 2005)

Adam,

I believe that the system outlined in your post is paradigmatically set up like the Roman Catholic system. Some people are more righteous, or law-abiding than us, so we get to share their points. In the RC position they allow for the sinner, saints, and Christ. The system or position that you describe (the traditional Reformed view) says that Christ alone saves, but errs by saying that he does this by appropriating his works righteousness to the sinner. I do say that we are reckoned in Christ, as he is our representative and our federal head, the central message of the scriptures do not communicate a double-imputatation but rather show our union based on the death of Christ and our being united with him through spiritual baptism.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



It's an illustration that a legal covenant is not opposed to a loving relationship, which is often a common criticism of the FV type assaults on the traditional Reformed view, a baseless criticism at that I might add. We could refer also to the covenant made between David and Jonathan as well. I do believe merit was involved on the part of Adam and Christ because what they inherit for their obedience (or lack there of) is given to those whom they represent. It's not meritorious for us because of the work of Christ on our behalf. I would recommend reading Ward's book "God and Adam." It is a historical overview of the development of the traditional view of the Covenant of Works, filled with primary source documentation. It should clear up any misconceptions about the traditional view which the FV type critics seem to make in ignorance (at least I hope they only speak in ignorance...).


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 23, 2005)

Ian,

I think you need to make yourself a bit more clear. In your comment that "Being not guilty means being righteous" has clear implications. One could very easily take this as being a type of infusion of grace especially since you make the comment that "the central message of the scriptures do not communicate a double-imputatation but rather show our union based on the death of Christ and our being united with him through spiritual baptism."

You know as well as I that double imputation, ie; the imputation of Christ's righteousness and our sin imputed to Christ on the cross is central to the Gospel message.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> ...



You still haven't answered the question. Just because Adam's relationship with God was legal does not mean that Adam was going to merit eternal life. If he had continued in the covenant he would have been given it graciously, this is called consequent necessity. Because God promised it to his faithful covenanters he gives it, not because of merit or worth. (though their fruitfulness is examined)


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Ian,
> 
> I think you need to make yourself a bit more clear. In your comment that "Being not guilty means being righteous" has clear implications. One could very easily take this as being a type of infusion of grace especially since you make the comment that "the central message of the scriptures do not communicate a double-imputatation but rather show our union based on the death of Christ and our being united with him through spiritual baptism."
> ...



I believe that Christ's righteousness is central but I do not assert that it is imputed to us by a type of legal fiction. Christ takes our sins away. Sins are gone. That's right-standing. God liked us already in the garden, the problem was sin got in the way, or death through sin. Christ pays our debt and destroys death for the believer. No infusion in that at all sir.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> You still haven't answered the question. Just because Adam's relationship with God was legal does not mean that Adam was going to merit eternal life. If he had continued in the covenant he would have been given it graciously, this is called consequent necessity. Because God promised it to his faithful covenanters he gives it, not because of merit or worth. (though their fruitfulness is examined)



Just because two parties are not equal, does not mean that the inferior party cannot merit the reward according to the structure of the covenant laid down by the superior party. This is exactly the arrangement in suzerain/vassal treaties. Adam would have merited eternal life, by fulfilling the condition laid down by God. Adam was not in any position to bargain or arrange the terms, merely to obey. But there is merit involved.



> I believe that Christ's righteousness is central but I do not assert that it is imputed to us by a type of legal fiction.



I'm saddened to see this kind of language, as well as the necessity to be a "faithful covenanter" in order to receive salvation. It's clear that you have sadly been too attentive at your current church. You've drunk pretty deep from a bad cistern.

Closing.


----------



## pastorway (Sep 25, 2005)

> _posted by Ian_
> The FV corporate does not have any other soteriology other than the same tried and true salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.
> 
> At the same time the notion of Christ's obedience being necessary to make us in right standing in the imputative sense is I think highly questionable.
> ...



Ian, 

If you are denying the necessity of the imputation of the rightesouness of Christ to our account then Fred and Wayne are correct and you are indeed denying an essential element of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Your posting privileges have herewith been suspended as the adminstrators review your posts and seek clarification from you on your views. Please check your U2U inbox.

If you stand by these statements and have been rightly understood, or if you fail to reply to the U2U inquiry, then you will be banned from the Puritan Board for a distortion of the gospel and a denial of the doctrine of justification by faith.

For the Administrators,
Phillip Way


----------

