This entry is a knock-your-head-against-the-wall-until-it-bleeds moment in anti-fv polemics.
Their reasoning is as follows. Since the creature owes all obedience to God, and since there is an infinite distance between God and man; therefore, man’s obedience cannot merit anything from God. As Lusk writes, “The creature is indebted to the Creator for his very existence; the creature can never indebt the Creator, no matter how much he serves or obeys” (Auburn Avenue, 121-122). In other words, since man owes God everything, man can never make a claim on God. Consequently, Lusk, Shepherd, and many others reject the idea of a covenant of works.
The problem with this is that they have not really rejected the covenant of works. They have rejected the idea of merit in the covenant of works, but so did the classic Reformed theologians. Thus, Francis Turretin writes, “Hence also it appears that there is no merit properly so-called of man before God, in whatever state he is placed. Thus Adam himself, if he had persevered, would not have merited life in strict justice…” (Institutes, XVII:v.7). This is clearly the doctrine of the Reformed confessions. The Westminster Confession of Faith says that man “could never have any fruition of [God] as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension” (7.1). The Formula Consensus Helvetica states that God “in this covenant freely promised [Adam] communion with God, favor, and life, if indeed he acted in obedience to his will” (emphasis mine, Canon 7). Whatever “different theologians” might have said, they agreed that this reward of eternal life was not a matter of simple justice.
Unbelievable. I have been saying this for five, six, more years and suddenly it is acknowledged as if every one had not been denying this very thing. Rich Lusk quoted Klinean disciple Bill Baldwin way back to point out the innovation that was being made in asserting a “strict justice” covenant. Wes White is silently moving into FV ground and pretending it is his after years of railing accusations.
Not happy about this.
Here is what I re-blogged a few months ago on the topic. I wrote this back in 2002, and started out by writing,
Adam’s good works were acceptable to God. He could do them and God would receive them. Our own “good” works, our very best works, require the forgiveness of God and the continual intercession of Jesus Christ due to their impurity. Thus, it is appropriate to describe God’s covenant with Adam as a covenant of works and God’s covenant with us as a covenant of grace in that we need and (if we are ultimately to be saved from God’s wrath) receive God’s grace in that he forgives what is lacking in our works.
And suddenly this is OK. Compare White’s concessions with how Lane responded to just these claims (text search the comments for “canoe” or “bricks” or “trucks” and go up and down from there).
And from there the posturing continues:
we note that while Adam’s obedience was not inherently meritorious of eternal life, it was certainly an absolutely necessary condition of obtaining eternal life.
Duh. No one has said, implied, hinted, or said otherwise while they were talking in their sleep. Not the big bad Norm Shepherd or his horrible demon spawn.
He goes on to assert what Zacharias Ursinus would consider redundant debt. Man as sinner allegedly owes God both obedience and death. Ursinus believed that the law demanded either obedience or death. If the punishment was paid for disobedience there could be no further claim on the person that he was liable for disobedience. Since both views were allowable at the Westminster Assembly, White has no constitutional basis for calling others out (though I’m afraid that consideration is considered all too trivial in the rush to condemn the brethren).
White goes on to give us a great “how much more” statement referring to Christ’s obedience which is refreshingly confessional. And reasonable. But I would also have thought that he might have considered Christ’s present submission to the Father at God’s right hand. Are we not, in Christ, reckoned to have that new creation obedience also? Why stop with Jesus’ earthly life?
I’m glad to see the earth-shaking concession in this entry but am not impressed with the revisionist pretence that FV has not been attacked on this very ground.
And what about the requirement of obedience made on believers in order that they may inherit eternal life? Is White going to argue that there is no such requirement because “Jesus did it all?”
That would be odd since Turretin thought such a position counted as an argument against the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, one that needed to be refuted if the doctrine was to be defended. He wrote:
Although Christ fulfilled the law for us as to obedience, it cannot be inferred that we are no longer bound to render obedience to God. It certainly follows that we are not bound to obey for the same end and from the same cause (to wit, that we may live by it, from our federal subjection). But this does not hinder our being bound by a natural obligation to yield the same obedience to God, not that we may live but because we live; not that we may acquire a right to life, but that we may enter upon the possession of the acquired right. Just as (though Christ died for us) we do not cease to be still liable to death—not for punishment, but for salvation (14.13.27, p 452; Emphasis added).
This certainly works well with Turretin’s insistence that good works are necessary to salvation “as means.”
But more importantly, for a denomination that insists that the church does not need to finally appeal to the Bible in all controversies of religion (if you know enough to taste the rich irony in that fact, you know more than most Presbyters), the Westminster Confession and Catechisms say the same thing over and over (here’s one example).
Just for the record, dealing with this stuff stopped being fun a long time ago.
Related: Is Forgiveness So Worthless?
Yes, Wes White has done similar Jiu-Jitsu in the past. See here: http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/the-denial-of-the-active-obedience-of-christ-piscator-on-justification/
Here’s my favorite part:
“To begin with, even though this denial was condemned by the French Reformed Churches (though this view was later tolerated even there), a great part of the Reformed Churches did not reject as ministers those who denied active obedience, let alone count them as heretics. For example, clearly Gataker, Twisse, and Vines denied the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, but they and their views were tolerated by the Westminster Assembly. Second, there were various ministers throughout the Reformed Churches who held this viewpoint, such as John Jacob Alting who taught at Groningen in the Netherlands.3 Third, the theologians of Saumur also denied the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Of course, the Swiss Reformed Churches condemned this viewpoint and other Salmurian views in the Formula Consensus Helvetica, but other Churches did not. Fourth, this denial was extremely common amongst the German Reformed Churches including theologians such as Piscator, Ursinus, Pareus, Crocius, Marinius, Wendelin, and Scultetus (among others!). Consequently, we can see that a significant minority did deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ often with toleration.”
So there ya go. He’s gonna be against the position, but he gives plenty of Reformed names that were ok with it.
Somehow the category is still “heresy” though. Whatevz. These critics are taking what ought to be a scholarly journal-style exchange of pros and cons and making it a lay-level “threat.”
I don’t get it. I never have. I don’t have to anymore though.
“The problem is that they have not found a new structure that can equally fit the pre-fall and the post-fall situation. They have simply made the classic Reformed structure of the covenant of works the basis for all of God’s covenants with man.”
No, i pretty much have always seen it as an interesting common structure to all covenants (why call them ALL covenants, if they have nothing in COMMON), rather than a a “classic works structure” imposed everywhere.
http://franciscanmafia.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/pelagianism-merit-and-the-covenant-of-works/
Thanks for your colorful response to my article!
For the record, I have not changed. This has always been my position on the covenant of works based on my reading of classic Reformed theology. I discussed this at length with Dr. Mark Beach about 5 years ago. I’m just now getting it into print. You should check out his book on Turretin’s doctrine of the covenant. You will see there that he makes the same points that I do on the covenant of works.
As for the necessity of good works, I agree they are a means to an end. God first transforms us in this life inwardly and then completes that work in glory. As Turretin says, “They are related…as the beginning to the complement because grace is glory begun, as glory is grace consummated.”
As for Ursinus, I do believe that you are correct in your reading. He would not agree with my point since he denied the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. However, from my reading of Piscator, they believed that Christ, by his passive obedience, merited not only forgiveness of sins but also a right to eternal life for the elect.
Beach’s book doesn’t seem easy to find. The only copy I’ve found thus far retails at $96.
Question: Did Adam have to earn eternal life, or did Adam initially pocess eternal life as he was originally created by God and was something he could lose by sinning?
Adam had Psuchicos life, but did not have pneumatikos life.
1 cor 15.
Mark, I hope you keep this template for awhile. It is by far the nicest template you have ever had for your blog.
Which brings me back to the conclusion that for many (certainly not all) this fight is not always about what people say it is about. How else would you find people joining themselves to people who are promoting feminism in the PCA?
“For the record, I have not changed. ”
I didn’t think you had. But the whole FV war has hinged on this point for some time. You could easily write the substance of your post as a direct attack on Scott Clark and Kline.
In other words, you have just revealed that an accusation is entirely false and yet you continue to condemn anyway. It is monstrous that this is happening.
Just for the record, dealing with this stuff stopped being fun a long time ago.
You have my sympathy. I became annoyed when someone I don’t know suggested that I report an “exception” to the Presbytery for articulating the precise WCoF position on baptism.
I can’t imagine dealing with that for five years.
I’m glad to see the earth-shaking concession in this entry but am not impressed with the revisionist pretence that FV has not been attacked on this very ground.
(and other similar)
I know that I’ve joined in the conversation late in the game, so there it is. Nevertheless, my observation is that a whole lot of the FV conversation looks like this:
FV: We’ve all been taught X, but in reality, X+Y.
anti-FV: Y is unacceptably heretical!
FV: I’m not a heretic. X! X! Look, I said it: X!
anti-FV: But you also said Y.
FV: Well, yeah, but the Bible says Y, and the Confession doesn’t say “not Y.”
anti-FV: but Y contradicts X.
FV: X! X! I’ll say it again: X!
anti-FV: But you said Y, too.
FV: But I don’t mean Y in the sense that contradicts X.
and so on.
I don’t forsee resolution until the senses of the various statements get resolved. The only other outcome will be that FV advocates will get ejected from the PCA and OPC.
And that would be, IMO, a sad day.
Hence a plea from Matthew 5.25: make every effort to settle matters quickly with your adversaries. Accept the cricitisms of what you *say* even if they don’t apply well to what you *mean.*
In short, build bridges.
My plea, which may be out of place, so I apologize if so.
Jeff Cagle
Some of the PCA’s best have left…