Real men don’t pass on hearsay and deception. This is a fitting post in a series about what is at once an “old boys network” and yet also a bunch of gossiping crones:

Clearly, this has numerous implications and applications for those in the so-called Federal Vision who disdain and deny the Covenant of Works taught in the Westminster Standards.

So taking all the blogs I’ve read today together: Manufacture falsehoods, pass them on through a handpicked committee, blog about them on the internet, exhange guilt-by-association smearing (with Papist bloggers) as a fair trade for real theological analysis, and then bitch about the “chickificaton” of our culture.

Not impressive.

It’s been a really interesting covenant of works kind of day and this was the big finish:

1. What is the Presbyterian doctrine of the Covenant of Works?

2. Duncan’s humble answer

3. Joel Garver, Ligon Duncan, and Adamic Merit in the Westminster Standards

Joel Garver has written more, dealing with merit among other things. You should read it. According to the Report

This is precisely the point of the Standards’ use of the term and theological category of “merit.” Merit relates to the just fulfillment of the conditions of the covenant of works (LC 55, 174).

This is an incredibly important statement because it defines two of the declarations.

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

It would be great to interpret number four, above, as a claim that we are free to ignore the content of the report regarding Adam and the fulfillment of the covenant of works. But the Committee document could just as easily, and probably intends to be, read in such a way as any “compromise” on the alleged merit of Adam impedes on Christ’s.

And the problem is that the reasoning is flawed (Adam’s demerit is what is related to Christ’s merit, not Adam’s merit), and the claim is utterly false to both the Reformed tradition generally and the Westminster Standards in particular.

Knowing the PCA culture that surrounds these “discussions,” I fully expect everything I’ve cited to be discounted without argument. After all, some on the committee had doctorates. They are experts. How could they go so fundamentally wrong on such a basic point, claiming Westminster meant something it nowhere says (especially not in their citations) and which mainstream Reformed Covenant theology constantly spoke against before and after the Westminster Assembly?

It is a good question. I admit it. I have no answer whatsoever.

In fact, I can’t even understand how the committee report could condemn the teaching of one of its own members, Dr. Ligon Duncan, in his lecture on the Covenant of Works (.pdf) in which he teaches (present tense since these are still documents his church publishes on their website):

What God is doing is not merited. Adam has not merited this. We use the phrase Covenant of Works, not to say that man earned these blessings, but to express the fact that this original relationship had no provision for the continuation of God’s blessings if disobedience occurred. So it was a covenant contingent upon Adam continuing in his obligations. (emphasis all in the original).

So here it is.  Perfect obedience was required of Adam, but it was not meritorious.  That is well within the bounds of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms and no one should even raise an eyebrow in any ecclesiastical court for teaching this.  Yet, according to the committee, this position (now?) is false and wrong to the Westminster Standards.

How could the committee do this?  As I said, I have no idea.

According to HA:

We understand that the Committee recognizes the corporate election of Israel. However, by the very terms of the Committee’s Report, the Committee is making the point that the national election of Israel does not work the same way as the FV “covenantal election.” This is critical. The properties of an individual within a group are not the same as the properties of the group. To say that they are the same is to commit the fallacy of composition. It would be the same as saying that since sodium is a poison, and chlorine is also a poison, that therefore sodium chloride (table salt) should be twice as poisonous. God’s choosing of Israel does not in any way imply automatic saving benefits for every individual within Israel. Not all Israel are of Israel.

The incompatibility of the FV with the fundamentals of the system of doctrine contained in the Standards becomes clear once we recognize that FV writers attribute saving benefits, not just to decretal election, but to covenantal election, even though (as they themselves would be the first to acknowledge), some of the covenantally elect are not decretally elect. Wilkins is very clear on this (see Federal Vision, pp. 58ff; or the Knox Colloquium volume, p. 269, where Wilkins teaches that all the covenantally elect are given “all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places”).

The committee gives a nod to “the corporate election of Israel” citing Question and Answer 101 of the Wesminster Larger Catechism. But that is a false portrayal of what the answer says:

Q. 101. What is the preface to the Ten Commandments?
A. The preface to the Ten Commandments is contained in these words, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.

So it isn’t just Israel. It is “us.” The person being catechized is trained by the catechism to identify himself as the company that has been rescued from spiritual slavery. The parallel text in the Shorter Catechism is also interesting.

Q. 44. What doth the preface to the ten commandments teach us?
A. The preface to the ten commandments teacheth us that because God is the Lord, and our God, and redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments.

The title of redeemer is only used in three other questions and answers in the catechism. Here they are:

Q. 20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God having, out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a redeemer.

Q. 21. Who is the redeemer of God’s elect?
A. The only redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, forever.

Q. 22. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A. Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin.

Q. 23. What offices doth Christ execute as our redeemer?
A. Christ, as our redeemer, executeth the offices of a prophet, of a priest, and of a king, both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation.

So there you have it. The Westminster Assembly members “attribute saving benefits, not just to decretal election, but to covenantal election, even though (as they themselves would be the first to acknowledge), some of the covenantally elect are not decretally elect.” They teach all the catechized members to view themselves as the elect having God in Christ as a redeemer. Both in Q&A #23 and in #44 the member of the visible Church is told that he is among God’s chosen people. And the reason for this, elaborated in the Larger Catechism, is found precisely in God’s covenant.

How is naming God as one’s redeemer any less problematic than saying one has “all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places”?

Of course, this is all just wrong.  The point is that we are to view election from the point of view of the covenant just like the catechisms teach us.  No one is saying that all members of the visible church have saving benefits.  That is just absurd.  “Saving” I take to mean “bringing to eternal glory.”  By definition, those who get saving benefits are brought to final salvation.  That is not true of everyone in the visible church.  If someone was so unclear, the best that could be said for Humbe Answers is that they are misconstruing intentions.  But I don’t believe anyone has been so unclear.  I have no idea where these guys get these accusations from.  The very fact they are trying to answer questions means I am not the only one who finds their accusations to be incredible.

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life (Romans 2.6, 7).

And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience (Romans 8.23-25).

Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up (Galatians 6.7-9).