Fesko doesn’t even track what he is saying from the beginning:
Lusk also sees a conflicting tension between the legal and relational categories in traditional Reformed theology: “The covenant of works construction strikes at the filial nature of covenant sonship. Adam was God’s son, not his employee.”
But that is not a statement against legal categories in any way, shape, or form. It is an objection to commercial categories that make Adam into a hired stranger to God.
This justification requires no transfer or imputation of anything. It does not force us to reify “righteousness” into something that can be shuffled around in heavenly accounting books. Rather because I am in the Righteous One and the Vindicated One, I am righteous and vindicated. My in-Christ-ness makes imputation redundant. I do not need the moral content of his life of righteousness transferred to me; what I need is a share in the forensic verdict passed over him at the resurrection. Union with Christ is therefore key.
Fesko then offers this analysis:
Here Lusk argues that union with Christ makes legal elements of the believer’s justification redundant and unnecessary, specifically that of the imputed active obedience of Christ.
How on earth can saying, “I need is a share in the forensic verdict,” count as a claim that the “legal elements of the believer’s justification” are “redundant and unnecessary.”
What Fesko wants to do is defend the doctrine of the Active Obedience of Christ. Since he doesn’t know how to do this, he is claiming that Lusk is rejecting the legal altogether and citing evidence that says the very opposite.
I like Lusk, i really do, but is this dispute kinda just an argument about definitions.
Lusk is properly noting that union is a bigger idea than imputation, and when you think about our union with our messiah, you can hardly avoid thinking of how we share everything.
But people are getting freaked out by Lusk calling imputation “redundant”. Is it really redundant to engage in specifications of a general truth? To note than there is a facet on the gem of union, which is imputation?
I can see the issue with “reifying” legal entities and passing them around, and with making imputation into an act that God does all its own, or mistakenly attributing a formal cause to justification at all, and those errors should be avoided.
The WCF says “They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.”
Do we want to say imputation is redundant with having A&E at our root?
What about “conveyance?” What’s funny here is that these 2 terms are in parallel. We make a whole lot of hay about the theological importance of “imputation”. But do we make alot of hay out of “conveyance”?
Q: How are we corruptified?
A: on the grounds of the conveyance of a corrupt nature by the instrument of ordinary generation.
Sounds kinda silly.
the WCF on Adam’s corruption does provide more fuel to the contention that union was the basis for a construal of imputation. “They, being the root..”
Paul, I see your point but basic horizon-of-discourse reading should eliminate the problems that are cropping up. Obviously Lusk does not think paul was being redundant by mentioning logizomai….
Thanks for continuing to come to the defense of the blogless. Good stuff. I send folks in my congregation over to your blog pretty regularly — and not just for updates on FV stuff.
pduggie,
You may well be right that this is a debate over defintions. But if so, it should be recognized as such. Fesko goes a lot further than that.
More to the point, I would freely admit the “redundant” comment in my colloquium essay has caused unnecessary problems. But note:
[1] In its original context, I was dealing specifically with “imputation” as transfer (as opposed to reckoning). Indeed, the same essay insists on a reckoning. Fesko has not dealt with the actual argument I made, Instead, he takes a couple of lines and twists them into the worst possible theological construction. Thus, Mark’s analysis of what is going on is exactly right.
[2] I have openly retracted the “redundant” comment in the my reply to the OPC Report. What else can I do? It seems that fairness would require the critics to look at more recent contributions and revisions, rather than continually camping out on something that was written about 5 years ago, when the controversy was in its infancy. (5 years — that’s a whole lifespan in webyears!) I have since clarified my position in a number of places, all readily available to anyone who would like to know what I think. But the critics want to ignore all that. The whole FV thing was supposed to be a conversation — and the conversation has progressed quite a bit over time. I’ve learned a lot and I think I have a much better way of framing my concerns and my position at this point. But critics like Fesko are not interested in truth or charitable dialogue; they want the easy kill, so they go for those things that look to be the easiest to attack. I don’t really see how that kind of approach serves the peace and purity of the church. But again, that raises the key question — are attacks on FV really motivated by peace and purity, or something else?
Fesko doesn’t even track what he is saying from the beginning:
But that is not a statement against legal categories in any way, shape, or form. It is an objection to commercial categories that make Adam into a hired stranger to God.
Quoting Lusk:
Fesko then offers this analysis:
How on earth can saying, “I need is a share in the forensic verdict,” count as a claim that the “legal elements of the believer’s justification” are “redundant and unnecessary.”
What Fesko wants to do is defend the doctrine of the Active Obedience of Christ. Since he doesn’t know how to do this, he is claiming that Lusk is rejecting the legal altogether and citing evidence that says the very opposite.
I like Lusk, i really do, but is this dispute kinda just an argument about definitions.
Lusk is properly noting that union is a bigger idea than imputation, and when you think about our union with our messiah, you can hardly avoid thinking of how we share everything.
But people are getting freaked out by Lusk calling imputation “redundant”. Is it really redundant to engage in specifications of a general truth? To note than there is a facet on the gem of union, which is imputation?
I can see the issue with “reifying” legal entities and passing them around, and with making imputation into an act that God does all its own, or mistakenly attributing a formal cause to justification at all, and those errors should be avoided.
The WCF says “They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.”
Do we want to say imputation is redundant with having A&E at our root?
What about “conveyance?” What’s funny here is that these 2 terms are in parallel. We make a whole lot of hay about the theological importance of “imputation”. But do we make alot of hay out of “conveyance”?
Q: How are we corruptified?
A: on the grounds of the conveyance of a corrupt nature by the instrument of ordinary generation.
Sounds kinda silly.
the WCF on Adam’s corruption does provide more fuel to the contention that union was the basis for a construal of imputation. “They, being the root..”
Paul, I see your point but basic horizon-of-discourse reading should eliminate the problems that are cropping up. Obviously Lusk does not think paul was being redundant by mentioning logizomai….
Mark,
Thanks for continuing to come to the defense of the blogless. Good stuff. I send folks in my congregation over to your blog pretty regularly — and not just for updates on FV stuff.
pduggie,
You may well be right that this is a debate over defintions. But if so, it should be recognized as such. Fesko goes a lot further than that.
More to the point, I would freely admit the “redundant” comment in my colloquium essay has caused unnecessary problems. But note:
[1] In its original context, I was dealing specifically with “imputation” as transfer (as opposed to reckoning). Indeed, the same essay insists on a reckoning. Fesko has not dealt with the actual argument I made, Instead, he takes a couple of lines and twists them into the worst possible theological construction. Thus, Mark’s analysis of what is going on is exactly right.
[2] I have openly retracted the “redundant” comment in the my reply to the OPC Report. What else can I do? It seems that fairness would require the critics to look at more recent contributions and revisions, rather than continually camping out on something that was written about 5 years ago, when the controversy was in its infancy. (5 years — that’s a whole lifespan in webyears!) I have since clarified my position in a number of places, all readily available to anyone who would like to know what I think. But the critics want to ignore all that. The whole FV thing was supposed to be a conversation — and the conversation has progressed quite a bit over time. I’ve learned a lot and I think I have a much better way of framing my concerns and my position at this point. But critics like Fesko are not interested in truth or charitable dialogue; they want the easy kill, so they go for those things that look to be the easiest to attack. I don’t really see how that kind of approach serves the peace and purity of the church. But again, that raises the key question — are attacks on FV really motivated by peace and purity, or something else?
Blessings,
RL
Hey those are both great points, Rich. Thanks.
I do want to try to start an argument about the conveyance of corruption sometime 🙂
I wonder if the apologetic questions about justification have led to the focus on transfer in imputation
“How is it fair that we get forgiven if we’re sinners”
“Well, God imputes Jesus’ righteousness to us, and so we can stand before him”
“How is it fair to impute righteousness that isn’t ours to us?”
“Lemme tell you about accounting….”