Federal Vision and Commonalities

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can always look up stuff in the Catholic Catechism as well. That's is considered an official doctrinal statement.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.

[3] ROM 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. ROM 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.

[4] GEN 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. GAL 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Click to expand...

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 . . .
Click to expand...

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]
Click to expand...

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. :2cents:

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
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]
 
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.
 
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

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."
Click to expand...

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]
 
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]
 
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
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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]
 
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]
Click to expand...

Please explain how merit finds its place in a marriage relationship? I'm not following you.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
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
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by Ianterrell
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]
Click to expand...

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

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...).
 
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.
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by Ianterrell
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]
Click to expand...

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

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...).
Click to expand...

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)
 
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."

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

jwright82
  • Locked
OPC and Federal Vision?
Replies
8
Views
5K
eqdj
eqdj
SRoper
  • Locked
Federal Vision and Lutheranism
Replies
10
Views
6K
Semper Fidelis
Semper Fidelis
Sovereign Grace
Federal Vision?
Replies
19
Views
2K
jwright82
jwright82
ColdSilverMoon
  • Locked
Federal Vision and Roman Catholicism
Replies
11
Views
5K
MW
M
brandonadams
  • Locked
Federal Vision Baptists?
Replies
20
Views
3K
Dachaser
D
Back
Top