Common Anti-FV Misconception #1
The FV is a Pharisaical movement because they, like the Pharisees criticized by Jesus, teach that our standing before God is (essentially) on the basis of our obedience to God’s Law.
This misconception first errs on the basis of Jesus’ actual rebuke of the Pharisees, and then the misconception is applied to the FV. One NHarper said on Green Baggins,
“…we have the “New Perspective” and the “Federal Vision”. Another attempt to “add” the yeast of the Pharisees to the purity and simplicity of the gospel.”
I encountered a form of this delusion the other day on Blogorrhea from Paul Manata of Triablogue:
“Jesus noted that the *Pharisees* tried harder than alomost [sic] anyone to obey the law, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the pharisees . . .”
This is false. Jesus noted that the Pharisees taught the Law, but they themselves did not keep it:
Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”
23“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.”
It is plain from this text that the issue Jesus took up with the teachers of the Law and Pharisees was not their vain attempt to merit God’s favor via obedience to the Law, but rather it was on account of their disobedience to the Law that Jesus rebuked them. Further, it is notable that Jesus instructed “the crowds and His disciples” to obey “the teachers of the Law and Pharisees” because they were Moses’ successors. In other words, Jesus instructed “the crowds and His disciples” to obey the Mosaic Law.
March 22, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Then by all means, obey the Law! Go ahead. But Jesus always spoke of *heart* obedience. Look to your heart. Mortify sin in your own heart. That’s what counts. That’s true obedience. Strive today to mortify sin in your own heart. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. Go ahead, Ron. Do it.
March 22, 2008 at 2:05 pm
By God’s grace I do and will. I don’t get your point. I understand that mere outward obedience is just as deadly as dead faith. In this, Paul and James attack opposite sides of the same coin; Paul takes on dead works and James takes on dead faith. But they both preached living faith working in love. That is all my FV with regard to justification, bro.
March 22, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Ron,
Perhaps I misunderstood you, or you misunderstood me.
You said God wouldn’t condemn those who *try* to obey God’s law.
You wrote:
“God never curses a people because they try too hard to obey His Law.”
So, I indicated that the Pharisees were *trying* to obey God’s law. Yes, they were off, they didn’t “get” it, they thought the law was more external, etc., but, the point is that using your vague terminology, we could say that they *were* trying to obey God’s law. I think this fits with common sense. Unless, of course, you have revelation, or the minutes from the psychologists couch, that indicates their psychological state as, “Hey, I am NOT going to try to obey God’s law.”
So, my first comment was intended to show you the problem of being too vague, ambiguous, and sloppy. You need to try to be more clear, otherwise I’ll simply do what I did, over, and over, and over.
Now, if you paid attention to the shift in my argument, you’d note that I changed from the vague “try” to a more specific qualifier. I even capitalized it so it wouldn’t be too subtle; but, alas, you missed the point still, didn’t you? I wrote about those who “REALLY” tried to obey God’s law. I indicated that these heart-felt obedience could only come from the *regenerate* heart. Thus, if one is “regenerate” then one is “in Christ,” he is “a new creation.” And, for these people *of course* there is no condemnation for them. Why? “Thee is now no condemnation for all those in Christ Jesus.” Jesus doesn’t condemn *those* people, because he condemned *Christ* in their stead.
So, my point was that your comment was, if undefined, ridiculous, and if it was defined in my sense, then it was superfluous. It offered nothing by way of support for the FV.
You should have emailed me before posting this. Saved yourself the public correction of mistakes.
As I’ve told you before, it’s not my job to keep your arguments straight, and free from cloudiness for you. That’s your job.
All your comments to my comment about the Pharisees are, then, *irrelevant.* This is because you chose to use a vague, sloppy term in an unclear way.
Glad I could clear things up for you, Ron.
Oh, and commenting on all the *other* errors in your post is another matter.
March 22, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I’m going to pay attention to this series (I assume it is the beginning of a series since you titled it with a ‘#1′).
Basically, you are saying that Jesus taught the abiding validity of God’s moral law for His disciples, which would include us. I see nothing unique here that a standard Reformed adherent should object to. Of course outward obedience without the heart’s obedience isn’t obedience at all.
So, Josh, on this post, do you disagree with anything Ron asserts? Do you think there is anything he asserts here that is uniquely FV?
kazoo
March 22, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Paul, my use of your quote was in the context of the broader FV discussion. It is a common misconception that the Pharisees tried to obey God’s Law. The fact is they really didn’t think they needed to obey God’s Law because they thought being a son of Abraham was enough. This is why Jesus told them their father was really the devil and this is why Paul labored to show the Jews their sinfulness under the Law in Romans 3. The Apostle Paul uses similar language as Christ saying that not all Jews are Abraham’s sons.
So, nice attempt at turning this around to make the mistake mine, bro. But you demonstrated the common misconception that Jesus was mad at the Pharisees for seeking God’s favor via obedience to God’s Law. That is all this post is about.
March 22, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Ron,
They did “try” to obey God’s law, they were just all goofed up. They didn’t even understand the requirements of the law, the focused on externals, they found ways to justify themselves (make excuses), etc.
They didn’t “try” to obey the law, as one should, from the *heart.* But then, *only* regenerate people do *that* (and weakly, meagerly, and poorly, I might add).
Ron, what does, “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees” mean?
Anywayt, I should point out, again, that you fail to interact with my point about regeneration and condemnation.
Ron, you cause all these problems for yourself, bro. You’re not very calculating.
March 22, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Ron,
They did “try” to obey God’s law, they were just all goofed up. They didn’t even understand the requirements of the law, the focused on externals, they found ways to justify themselves (make excuses), etc.
They didn’t “try” to obey the law, as one should, from the *heart.* But then, *only* regenerate people do *that* (and weakly, meagerly, and poorly, I might add).
Ron, what does, “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees” mean?
Anywayt, I should point out, again, that you fail to interact with my point about regeneration and condemnation.
Ron, you cause all these problems for yourself, bro. You’re not very calculating.
Btw, I never said “Jesus was mad”.
March 22, 2008 at 7:33 pm
And, I think the thread is a bit dishonest. My comment had to do with your vague claim “God doesn’t condemn those who try to follow the law.”
Given my qualifications on how I would agree, your claim wasn’t even a “FV” claim.
So, you’re “correcting” something that was never meant to be an attack on “FV”, *per se.*
March 22, 2008 at 10:17 pm
It doesn’t matter if you were not attacking FV “per se”, it is a common misconception that is attributed to the FV. Further, the context was in my denial that the Roman doctrine of justification deviates from orthodoxy so much as to make it a non-church. This is an FV point. So you were critiquing my position, which is an FV position, and you employed a common FV misconception. I don’t see where I am being dishonest here.
If you want to retract the statement, go ahead. I will be happy to post it and leave it at the top for a week.
But I am not buying that the Pharisees were somehow “trying to obey the Law”, only they got it wrong. Where do the scriptures say this?
March 23, 2008 at 7:55 am
Where did I “attribute” anything to the “FV” *at all.*
I was interacting with *your* vague comment.
I know what the context of the discussion was, and I know you are FV, and I know I was critiquing *your* FV position (don’t pretend that there’s anything like “the” FV position).
I will not retract the statement. I explained how I could make it. Because you use of “try.” Now, unless you have some revelation, or some insight into the mental states of 2 thousand year old Jewish men, then you can’t possibly know that they weren’t “trying” to obey God’s laws. You make the claim that
That’s a fallacious argument from silence, Ron.
I also did argue for my point, Ron. The only way you could say that they were not “trying” to obey God’s law is in your understanding of “trying.” But, since it was left open-ended, it can fit in the Pharisees. Are you saying that if you injected them with truth serum and had Jack Bauer interrogate them, they would say, “Yes, Ron, none of us are trying to obey God’s law.” They *thought* that’s what they were doing. Indeed, one of them praid, “I thank theee God that I am not like this sinful publican!” He thought he was holy, that he was observing the laws, etc. And aghain, what does “unless your righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees” mean? So, I made scriptural, theological, psychological, and sommon sensical points. Sure, you can *define* trying in such a way that we could say that the Pharisees were not trying. But, then, I already *did that.* I was pointing out your vague terminology. That’s how you analyze people’s comments. Get them to specify, define, use precision, etc. And then once they do, you can then make your argumentative move. This is what I was/am trying to do, you’re just continuing to enjoy being sloppy and vague.
Now, I then added a qualifer, a distinction. I *clarified* a type of *trying* that the Pharisees, indeed *no one* save the ones I demarcted, could be said to be “trying” in *that* way. But then, once I established *that* point I showed that your comment was superfluous, and ridiculous, and not an “FV” point.
I don’t care if you want to be honest and disassociate my name from your post, as long as you leave the comments up. I am betting mkost people with half a brain can figure out what I’m getting at.
March 23, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Ron, I’m kinda pumped about this series. Keep it up!
Ron and Paul M together, I think you’ve both gotten off on the wrong foot with each other. Let’s just call a truce and return to Ron’s fundamental point, to discuss it’s validity. Did the Pharisees believe that they earned favor from God through obedience to His law? Was that the way the Pharisees self-consciously tried to approach God?
This is really more of a “NPP” point than an “FV” point. True, there is a good bit of overlap on this particular isssue b/w the two groups, since a lot of FVers have read Wright (especially, other NPPers not nearly so much) and appreciate his basic claim about Pharisaism.
In any case, I’m not commenting on the conversation you two already had over at Paul M’s blog. Ron’s point here is clear enough.
Paul M, since I haven’t read the thread on your blog forgive me (and correct me) if I’m missing something obvious here. Again, it may be that Ron misunderstood your comment in that other thread. But let me try to respond to something you just posted here:
Acc. to NPP thinking (and many FVers), the Pharisee is not thanking God for making Him a works righteous earner of salvatoin. Rather, he is thanking God for making Him a Jew. A person who has been given God’s covenant and His law, and who therefore has to do nothing else to be in God’s good graces. “Sinner” for a 1st century Pharisee was not so much a term denoting “one who commits sins”, but “one who is not a member of the chosen people.” The Gentiles were all “sinners” because they were completely in bondage to sin. Yes, they committed actual sins, but that wasn’t even the primary point. So did the Pharisees, and they recognized this. The point is that the Gentiles have not been given the gift of God’s special covenant. They are completely outside of God’s special protection, and thus they are filthy “sinners” in a way that Jews or not. They are people still living in the world (not in God’s special covenant), and the world is the place where sin reigns.
It’s a subtle difference, really. The Pharisee is not taking pride in his own obedience to the law, so much as he is taking pride in the fact that he has been given God’s law in the first place. He is a Jew, a covenant person, a person God talls to (i.e., a person God gives His law to). This, all by itself, puts the Pharisee in a “better place” than the publican. It is all grace, though, in theory; that’s why the Pharisee thanks God for it.
So the problem here is tha the Pharisee thinks that simply being a person to whom the Law was GIVEN is enough to make you one of God’s people. What he didn’t realize is that you’re actually supposed to KEEP the law.
I don’t quite buy the NPP argument here either, since clearly the Pharisees tried to keep the law and took some sort of pride in that fact. But this is why I said the point is subtle: I think there is some validity to the basic NPP picture, in that what the Pharisees were really all “about” was not being perfect little law keepers, but being special people set apart by God’s grace, which their possession of the law shows. Their possession of the law shows that they are special. This is a “grace” way of thinking about things. But it’s not a salvific form of religion, because it has no place for Christ. Thus, Ron’s point that the Pharisees’ problem was not that they tried to keep the law, but that they didn’t keep it enough.
“Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees” means that you must keep the law in a way that the Pharisees did not. (Through faith in Christ…which is the Pharisees fundamental mistake; they didn’t get that whole Jesus is the Messiah thing).
I personally am rather blah about NPP. I think it’s interesting, and I like a lot of stuff in NT Wright, but as an entire “revolution” in biblical scholarship I think it’s similar to postmodernism. In a hundred years, we won’t think any of it was that big of a deal. But I could be wrong, of course.
March 23, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Xon, thanks for the comments.
You said,
Agreed. This is supported by the mouth of Paul himself in Galatians 2:15
“We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;”
March 23, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Rom. 9:30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,
So according to Paul, Israel pursued a righteousness before God through works, not through faith. Paul was a Pharisee himself. I’d bet he understood how the Pharisees thought better than we do.
Phil. 3:4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
Paul, as a Pharisee, was able to boast about his law-keeping, which made him a top notch Jew. He was “blameless”. Of course we understand that that’s what he thought of himself as, not how he truly was. Is it really a great stretch to impute this mindset on the Pharisees as a whole, since this is what Paul is trying to describe to the very people who he knows have a similar mindset?
Matt. 19:16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”
It’s not just the Pharisees, but the Jews as a whole who were trying to earn salvation through works.
And this is what Paul calls the stumbling stone.
This was the very air they breathed under the Mosaic covenant, which was a typological/pedagogical, temporal covenant of works, though it was an administration of the covenant of grace.
Now here’s exactly what I mean by that. Their eternal salvation was still by grace through faith. They were post-fall, so they were in the covenant of grace, since because sin had entered the world through Adam, no one could from then on be justified by works, except the virgin-born Christ. So the Jews couldn’t earn eternal salvation by works.
However, they were charged to obey the law in order to stay in the land of Israel. They were kicked out of the land for disobedience. They weren’t eternally condemned (necessarily), but they were temporally kicked out of the land of Israel.
This was a pedagogical covenant of works. It is designed to recapitulate the covenant of works with Adam.
Hos. 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.
Faithless here means lack of faithfulness to the covenant, in other words, they disobeyed, just like Adam, who disobeyed by eating the fruit.
The covenant with Moses was like the covenant with Adam in that it entailed a works principle. It was pedagogical in that it was designed to teach us that we cannot earn salvation, since Adam failed to earn it in the Garden, and since Israel failed to earn their remaining citizenship in the land.
But Israel didn’t understand the difference, which Paul points out. They didn’t understand that righteousness before God, since the fall, cannot be obtained by works - after all, that was the whole point of the Mosaic history of Israel.
The whole point, says Paul, is that righteousness can only be obtained through faith in Christ, which lays hold of his merits, and has no merits of its own.
This is the lesson of Israel, this is the lesson of the NT too. The whole point is our need for Christ, and how God was faithful to bring about our salvation through Christ. This is the whole point of the Bible. And it’s very crystal clear.
E
March 24, 2008 at 6:38 am
You really lost me at this rubbish, Echo:
This is unconfessional. There is nothing that says the Mosaic Covenant was at all a covenant of works. People who have a problem reconciling grace with obligation look at the Mosaic Law and see all the obligation, and then label it a recapitulation of the covenant of works. But neither the scriptures nor the confession support this.
God’s covenant with Abraham began with a command to go to another country (Gen 12) and later demanded that Abraham walk before Him blamelessly (Gen 17). And because Abraham obeyed God in the matter with Isaac, God fulfilled His promise to Abraham (Gen 22). Look at all those works required of Abraham! Does this make the Abrahamic covenant a recapitulation of the covenant of works?
Recapitulation is simply not a consistent reading of scripture.
March 24, 2008 at 8:47 am
Ron and Xon,
Neither have shown me that, however confused or mistaken, Pharisses *thought* they were obeying God’s laws. If they thought they were, they thought they were “trying” to, in however mistaken way.
On the last day people will come to Jesus and say, “Lord, Lord, did I not do X in your name.” Those people, howveer mistaken, think they are obeying Jesus, doing what he wants. If something thinks they are obeying Jesus, they are trying to.
No one has been able to show that the Pharisees were not *trying* to obey God’s law. If we give “try” a broad enough range, then of coruse they were! All Jews knew they were supposed to obey God’s laws. The Pharisees would tell each and everyone of us that they were trying to do that.
I haven’t even got into the specific point Ron is trying to make. He used my words for fodder when the point of my comment to him was not false. It was based on Ron’s sloppy, vague terminology.
So, Xon is wasting his time just as Ron is. Ron is slandering me by putting my name in lights as if I’m going around misunderstanding or misrepresenting the FV, when all I was doing was addressing *Ron’s* vague statement.
March 24, 2008 at 9:41 am
Paul. Ok, so now the Pharisees “thought they were “trying” to [keep the law], in however mistaken way.”
But this is not the same thing as actually trying to obey God’s Law.
If there was any sincerity on their part, their failure would not be hypocrisy. It would only be weakness. That is, unless you want to ascribe the word “hypocrite” to the believer who sincerely tries to obey God’s Law, but fails daily in thought word and deed.
On the charge of slander, I find that a bit ironic. I am not calling you a heretic as FV brothers have been called. I am not trying to get you put up on charges for striking at the vitals of our religion as has been done to FV brothers. I am simply pointing out what I perceive to have been an error in your statement with regard to Christ’s rebuke of the Pharisees. This is a common error that has been asserted and then applied to the FV. Again, that is all this post is about.
But rather than simply admit that you held an erroneous view of the nature of our Lord’s rebuke against the Pharisees, namely that they “tried harder than alomost [sic] anyone to obey the law”, which assertion has not been supported by you with scripture as requested, by the way, and said request for substantiation has been dismissed as a “fallacious argument from silence”, you back off only a bit from your statement to say that they “thought” they were trying to obey the Law.
March 24, 2008 at 10:59 am
Ron,
The Pharisees never came to the point of the apostle Paul: “What a wretched man I am!”. Indeed, if they truly *tried*, spiritually, to obey God’s Law, then they would be saying what Paul said of his *converted state* in Romans 7.
March 24, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Josh. Although I don’t understand Romans 7 the same way you do, I agree with your statement with regard to the Pharisees not truly trying to obey God’s Law. This is what I have been saying.
March 24, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Paul, I hate injustice. I am sorry if you have been slandered. Ron, think it through and be sure you weren’t a bit hasty to Paul. Paul, reconsider your tone. If you want this public sin against you to be recognized, then you must also have your own condescending attitude recognized. Now, both of you hug and go back to playing in the yard. Good boys.
Lord knows, Paul, I’m all about reading words carefully and understanding the full range of possibilities for their meaning. In some broad sense, sure the Pharisees were “trying” to do what they thought God wanted them to do. But not in a sense that counts against Ron’s comment in that original thread (which I have now reviewed). As you put it here in this thread, Paul M:
Paul, as I read Ron’s comment it was pretty clear to me what he meant by “try.” Notice the full phrase “trying too hard”. Emphasize the “too“. Is there a person (or, an entire nation) who hears God’s law, sets out sincerely to do all that it says to do (not just in an outward way), who God then condemns as though they were doing something seriously wrong? “Shame on you, you tried too hard to obey My law?” Ron is saying no, and that is pretty clearly what he means by “try.” Nobody tries in that way and gets condemned. The fact that “try” could have a different meaning doesn’t really matter, as it is plainly not the meaning Ron intended to give it in that passage. Otherwise, the word “try” is simply off-limits always for people who want to be clear, as is virtually every other word, since (virtually) all words could mean something other than what the author intends.
Hooray for clarity. But be careful you do not lay burdens upon other that you are not willing to carry. In any case, continuing:
Again, note the condescension and the attempt to bellittle a person on his own blog? Act like a respectful guest, or don’t be a guest. The Internet provides anonymity, which makes it so easy to lose our cool. I’m not saying I’m perfect, either. But as a brother in the faith I have the right to call it like I see it. You have done so against Ron. I am saying that calling for public repentance works both ways.
So, after making a point of calling Ron out for using a “vague, sloppy” word like “try,” you then map out what you take to be your better formulation, which centers around the word “really.” Like, really?
(It’s not sarcasm when I do it, because I always include emoticons. This is a law of the universe.)
So you want to talk about those who REALLY try to obey the law. What does “really” mean, though? “Really” can call out something that is true from something that is false (i.e., some people claim to try but don’t, other claim to try and do). It can also be an intensifier (i.e., some people try with great exertion beyond what most people give). Vague, sloppy word! I’m gettin’ the vapors!
(Ah, gotcha again. I used that emoticon. 
)
But in response we can say that Ron did have a reasonably discernible “definition” for “try” in his comment, so it wasn’t ridiculous because undefined as you say. And as to it being defined in YOUR sense, it is hardly superfluous. Yes, only those who are regenerated are the ones who “REALLY” try to obey God’s law (i.e., try to obey in the proper sense of try). So, were the Pharisees trying to obey God’s law in that sense? NO, right, since they weren’t regenerated? (The one’s Jesus condemns are not regenerated…exceptions like Joseph of Aramathea don’t count). Yet the Reformed world today is full of people who tell us that those Pharisees were a bunch of works-righteousness advocates who were trying to earn their way into Heaven by obeying God. But how could this be so, if the only people who REALLY try to obey God’s law (in the sense that Ron originally used the term), are regenerate, and thus are advocats of faith and not works righteousness? Maybe Ron’s comment SHOULD be superfluous, but in our current polemical climate it is not. A fairly obvious implication of sola fide and regneration should tell us that the Pharisees’ problem was not that they tried to keep the law in the proper sense, yet many of us seem to miss it.
Consider where we are at this point. If the Pharisees were not trying to keep God’s law in its true and proper sense, as we all seem to agree, then what WERE they trying to do? To keep the law in the wrong way? Presumably nobody TRIES to keep the law in a wrong way (i.e., I’m only going to do the externals, even though God clearly tells me He wants more than that.) Again, Ron’s claim all along is that the answer to this question should be “no.” His claim is not ambiguous or vague. If you understand what God’s law requires of you and you set out sincerely to do it, this is never something a person would be condemned for. That is Ron’s point, isn’t it?
Yet you claim to correct his alleged vagueness by making a point that isn’t at all incompatible with what he said. You point out that only the regenerate truly try to keep the law in the proper sense. How is this a rebuttal to Ron? Ron’s point was not about who tries to keeps the law in the proper sense (the regenerate); his point was about whether people get condemned for putting too much energy into God’s law properly understood (no, they don’t). “God, I really want to serve you and I thank you for giving me your law to show me how to do that. Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.” But the Lord says, “Depart from me! I never knew you! You should have repented of your wicked attitude of trying too hard to keep My law.” Does this ever happen?
If you think it does, then you will be responding to Ron’s original point. Either way, it’s not clear that Ron misrepresented you. The words he quoted from you were these:
Now, this looks like a claim on your part that the Pharisees were trying to obey the law in the right way, but they just messed it up because they didn’t know what the right way was. They THOUGHT the law only required externals. Even if this is right, though, how does it mean that the Pharisees were trying “too hard?” See, you still haven’t spoken to Ron’s original point.
Now, my guess is that what you intended all along in this thread was to simply say that Ron misunderstood your intnetion in that above quote. He read you as saying that the Pharisees were guilty of trying too hard to obey God’s law (and, to be fair, his reading is understandable, since you posted that comment as a response to his claim that they were not guilty of trying too hard; so your rebuttal of his “were not” would seem to be reasonably interpreted as a “were.” But put that aside…) What you actually seemd to intend, though, was simply that the Pharisees were making some effot to do what they THOUGHT God required of them. If this is what you meant, then I agree that Ron misunderstood you. But, again, his miusnderstanding is understandable, given the context in which you gave that comment (supposedly as a refutation of Ron’s claim).
Furthermore, if this is what you are saying, then are you and Ron even disagreeing on the substance of the Pharisaical approach to the law? You both seem to believe that the Pharisees did not understand what the law truly required (obedience from the heart, weightier matters over lesser matters, etc.) Neither of you seem to be asserting that the Pharisees got in trouble because they sat out to properly obey God’s law.
March 24, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Thanks for coming out again, Xon. Just FYI: Paul and I know each other personally, and I irritate him from time to time sorta like my kids irritate me when I am trying to teach them to tie their shoes.
March 24, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Ron,
I think you’re capable of a better and more thorough critique of what I said. And I think it’s in your best interests to do so, since what I said directly contradicts what you said. In fact, I demonstrated how the Apostle Paul and at least one of the Gospel writers contradicts you directly and explicitly.
In response you have offered only an assertion, not an argument. A bare requirement to obey does not make a covenant of works. A covenant does more than posit a law to be followed. To be sure, the New Covenant in Christ’s blood demands obedience as well.
But there is a big difference here between simply demanding obedience and demanding obedience in order to earn life, whether temporal or eternal.
As for my view being contra-confessional, let me quote from the WCF:
CHAPTER 19
Of the Law of God
1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
Echo: Ok, so clearly it’s confessional to say that Adam was under a covenant of works, whereby his obedience would EARN life. I know at least some in the FV would completely deny this. If being confessional is important to you, it would be nice if you affirmed that before the fall, Adam was under a covenant of works. The next section of the same chapter of the confession says:
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
Echo: this same law was given at Mount Sinai. As a covenant. But of course, this section doesn’t prove my point. It is a necessary premise though. The next section says:
3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.
Echo: notice the phrase “typical ordinances”. They were laws, but they were “typical” in character. Since these “typical ordinances” prefigured Christ to come, now, after Christ HAS come, these laws are “abrogated”. This also doesn’t completely prove my point, but this is saying something similar to what I was saying.
Chapt 7 says:
5. This covenant [of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.
Echo: now when I said that the Mosaic economy was a typological/pedagogical administration of the covenant of grace, this is what I meant. There were “ordinances” that were typological, and pointed forward to Christ to come. These ordinances went away when Christ did in fact come.
So what we have is a Mosaic covenant which was an administration of the covenant of grace, which had additional laws that were “abrogated” when Christ came.
While I admit that what I’ve said so far doesn’t DEMAND my view, it certainly leaves ROOM for my view. And in fact, there is NO room at all for saying that our situation is the same as that of Israel. The Larger Catechism says:
Q. 33. Was the covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner?
A. The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New.
Q. 34. How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
A. The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.
So clearly the Mosaic covenant was a typological covenant.
If you think it nonsense to call it a typological covenant of works, then please explain what kind of typological covenant it is. Also, please explain why the stated reason for Israel’s exile was their DISOBEDIENCE. How is the Mosaic covenant a different administration of the covenant of grace than that in which we now find ourselves? What has changed? How did the types and ordinances of the Mosaic covenant point to Christ, the substance?
E
March 24, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Brother Echo. I admit that I dismissed the bulk of your previous post when I got to that part that aggravated me. I admit that this was rude and I am sorry. I will try to do better here.
If it is not the obedience requirements, then what makes the mosaic administration a recapitulation of the covenant of works?
This is not clear to me. Where does it say that Adam was to *earn* life? Adam already had life given freely to him. He had the whole world given to him. Sure, he had to remain faithful in order to keep the gift and (perhaps) in order to progress to a more glorious life, but that is not the same as merit.
You are equating “reward for doing” with “merit”. But we will one day receive rewards for what we do in the body, and that isn’t a matter of merit, is it? HINT: http://solafidelity.com/2008/03/12/do-christians-merit-eternal-rewards/
No one is saying that our situation is the same as Old Covenant Israel, bro. But our situation with regard to justification *is* the same (WCF XI.VI).
I agree that the typical ordinances were taken up in Christ, but that just means that He performs them for us as the priesthood has transferred from the Levites to Jesus. They are not really abrogated as Jesus said that is not what He came to do (Matthew 5:17).
March 24, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Ron,
I’m not sure if I’m making my points clearly. What I am saying is that the FV wants to talk about obeying God’s Law, and you say from the heart; but I am saying that, if they truly were seeking to obey God’s Law, then they would have a constant sense of their own wretchedness. However, many of them don’t like the Puritans, nor do they like self-examination; my point is that they do not seem to have a sense of what it truly means to obey God’s Law from the heart. Indeed, I don’t think I’ve ever even heard an FVer speak of mortifying sin.
March 24, 2008 at 8:21 pm
One question for you gentlemen, do you think that the Pharisees believed that the law was a “mediator” between God and men? That obedience to the law of Moses was the Channel (of contact) between men and the divine? I do, and I believe where the Pharisees got it wrong is that the “object “of their faith was misplaced - their faith was in the law as a justifier and a means to God - rather than having faith “in God” and more specifically in Jesus Christ as a justifier and a means to God.
When the object of our faith is in the right place, this “true” faith manifests itself in works - James 2.
Secondly, in context of the new covenant, Jeremiah 31, verse 33, says that “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
In what way does the Holy Spirit, enable and empower us to obey God’s law if it is written on our hearts?
Otherwise why such strong words in 1 John 3 (and many other places) “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
Lar
March 24, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Ron,
You said: “You are equating “reward for doing” with “merit”.”
Echo: Please explain the difference.
You said: “But we will one day receive rewards for what we do in the body, and that isn’t a matter of merit, is it?”
Echo: I totally understand your point here. But what will the reward consist of? Will pastors, for example, who are more pious let’s say, have perhaps more jewels on their crown than the thief on the cross next to Jesus who didn’t do anything apart from confess his faith? Paul promises us in Rom 8 that God will give us who believe “all things”. How is “all things” different from “all things”? Will there be a greater reward for those who did more than those who did less for the kingdom?
No, I think Christ does for us in the body what we couldn’t do for ourselves.
You said: “If it is not the obedience requirements, then what makes the mosaic administration a recapitulation of the covenant of works?”
Echo: What makes for a covenant of works, as I thought I had said already, but forgive me if I didn’t, is that something is promised on the condition of obedience. Like I quoted the Confession saying about Adam. Life (eschatological life) was promised to him on the condition of perfect obedience. Thus that was a covenant of works. The Israelites, similarly, while they were justified by grace alone through faith alone, were promised long life IN THE LAND for obedience - not eternal salvation, mind you. TEMPORAL, not eternal, blessings were promised to them for obedience. That’s the distinction between them and us. We aren’t promised to be rich and prosperous and to have long life if we obey the law. Nope, Jesus kind of explodes that concept, having been perfect and being put to death at the young age of 33, and having a life characterized by grief and suffering. And in fact, we are promised that we too will suffer in this life. So we’re in a very different position than Israel.
You said: “No one is saying that our situation is the same as Old Covenant Israel, bro.”
Echo: that was an invitation to explain the difference. So here’s the invitation again.
You said: “But our situation with regard to justification *is* the same (WCF XI.VI).”
Echo: And how. That’s why we’re not dispensationalists.
You said: “the typical ordinances…are not really abrogated as Jesus said that is not what He came to do (Matthew 5:17).”
WCF 19.3 “…All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.”
Echo: so you appear to be directly contradicting the Confession here.
Matt. 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
“Law [and] Prophets” refers to the entire Old Testament. That was how they referred to it in those days. So he didn’t come to say that the OT was not the Word of God. But he DID come to fulfill it. In other words, he didn’t come to overturn what the OT said, but to continue building on its foundation, since it was his Word to begin with anyway.
But more than that, we know Jesus didn’t do away with the 10 Commandments, as an abiding summary of the moral law that binds all of us.
But what he did was free us from the curse of the moral law (the curse of death uttered to Adam). More than that, he DID do away with the OT ceremonial laws, because he fulfilled them.
In other words, we can now eat hot dogs, whereas an OT Jew could not. That law was typological, along with the other ceremonial laws, and finds its fulfillment in Christ, the substance (7.6).
Under the heading of ceremonial law belongs the entire temple worship establishment.
After all, Christ doesn’t just bring a better, permanent sacrifice for sins, but he brought the ONLY sacrifice for sins, since the author to Hebrews informs us that the blood of bulls and goats could NEVER take away sin, but only POINTED to what Christ would do.
See, you said: “I agree that the typical ordinances were taken up in Christ, but that just means that He performs them for us as the priesthood has transferred from the Levites to Jesus.”
Echo: Jesus doesn’t just become the perfect, ever-living, never sinning Levitical priest. His priestly order is after Melchizadek, transcending the OT Levitical priesthood altogether. The Levitical priesthood did not ever remove sin. But it was an act of faith, which faith united the believer to Christ, and HIS sacrifice took away their sins. It was sacramental, so to speak.
Jesus’ sacrifice of himself is the one and only sacrifice that ever actually took away sins. By sacrificing animals in the OT (even before Israel), people participated in the sacrifice of Christ by faith.
Going back to the Garden, and the first sacrifice, God himself slaughtered an animal to cover Adam and Eve’s nakedness. He did so to teach them that “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.” He taught them the principle that we have clearly laid out now in Hebrews. But the blood of animals could not serve as a substitute for the blood of human beings, made in the image of God. Only a man could do that, and in fact, only the God-man Jesus Christ could do it for all the elect, once and for all.
Animal sacrifice never propitiated the wrath of God, but it taught the people to have faith in the one who was to come and sacrifice himself for their sins, once and for all, making peace with God, purchasing their salvation with his blood shed on the cross.
E
March 24, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Josh,
I don’t know where you are getting that they “don’t like self examination”. They don’t like wallowing in guilt when they have been forgiven, but they certainly teach their people to examine themselves.
If you ever podcast Christ Kirk or Auburn Avenue, you’ll see that your assertion is untrue. They start every worship service off with a corporate confession of sin.
The thing is, everybody is different. There is the Christian who seems to revel in his sinfulness and simply will not believe that God has forgiven him, and there is the Christian who doesn’t think he needs forgiveness at all. Both of these need to be preached addressed. The former needs to be assured that their sins are forgiven in Christ and the latter needs to be reminded that God can raise up children of Abraham from rocks. I stole that from Wilson, by the way.
As to the Puritans, Wilson calls himself a High Church Puritan, so I don’t know where you are getting that. Perhaps you are referring to one of Wilkins’ lectures about the later Puritans who established a half-way covenant for covenant children who were never “born again” in a very visible way.
Here is a link to the lecture: http://radioapologia.com/archives/The_Legacy_of_the_Half_Way_Covenant_by_Steve_Wilkins.mp3
March 24, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Larry,
Thanks for stopping by.
My take on the psychology of the Pharisees is that they basically thought their heritage made them righteous. This is why Paul in Romans 3 labors to point out the Jews that there were people throughout their heritage that the scriptures referred to as unrighteous.
March 24, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I said: “You are equating “reward for doing” with “merit”.”
Echo said: Please explain the difference.
I don’t think I have to explain the difference so much as show you examples of reward for doing that you would call “grace” rather than “merit.” But quickly, merit demands something of self-made worth to give in exchange of something else. But if someone gives you a gift, and then promises to continue giving you gifts if you take care of the first gift, it is all grace.
Abraham is the first obvious example. God said that *because* Abraham did not withhold his son, God would bring about all that he had promised him. *Because* Abraham obeyed, God fulfilled His promise proving said was contingent upon obedience. Abraham *did* and he was rewarded.
But you would not call this merit.
The same goes for our reward “for everything done in the body (WCF XXXIII), and I believe the same went for Adam in the garden. Had he obeyed, God would have said, “Because you obeyed, I will bring about everything I promised you.”
But you admit that we will be rewarded “for what we do in the body” in accordance with WCF XXXII, right? But we are not in a covenant of works, are we?
Yes, I admit it. I suppose I could accept that they are abrogated with regard to our literal performance of them. But the ceremonial Law cannot be said to be abolished since Jesus said He did not come to do that. He came to fulfill and he did and does fulfill in us the ceremonial cleanliness necessary to approach God.
Agreed. So He didn’t abolish the foundation.
Everything else you said after the previous quote I agree with too.
March 25, 2008 at 12:20 am
Well, it’s great that there’s so much to agree on between us Ron.
As for Abraham, yeah, there’s some merit going on. However, he didn’t EARN eternal salvation by his own obedience. As Paul informs us, in Rom 4, his righteousness was by faith, by believing the promise that was made to him. But why was the promise made to him? For obedience.
Remember, what is promised to him is not eternal salvation. It’s a temporal blessing that the earth would be blessed through his seed. There is a temporal blessing bestowed upon Abraham through his own (relative) merit.
The same kind of principle applies with David. Because David was faithful, temporal blessings about his offspring were promised to him.
Horton calls these a royal grant, a reward for faithful service.
The same principle applies to Israel, the offspring of Abraham, as a whole. The entire Israelite theocracy involved merit all over the place. They inherited the land based on the promise made to Abraham, but they had to stay in the land based on their own obedience. Again and again, God says, “I should destroy you…BUT, for the sake of my servant Abraham, I won’t.” Or if not Abraham then David. This is part of the richness of how Abraham and David are types of Christ. While they earned temporal blessings for their offspring by imperfect obedience, Christ earned eternal blessings for us by his perfect obedience.
Our salvation is not conditioned upon our obedience, but upon the obedience of Christ. For us, the only condition is faith, and God supplies that through regeneration. Some have even said that the covenant of grace is unconditional, relegating faith to one of the blessings of the covenant. I wouldn’t go that far, but I’m not entirely opposed to such language either.
But Adam’s promise of eschatological life was conditioned upon obedience, as the WCF says. And Israel’s continued citizenship in the land was also conditioned upon obedience. For Adam, before the fall, eternal life would be given based on merit. For Israel, they couldn’t get eternal life based on merit - but they COULD get temporal blessings based on merit. These same promises are not held out to us. The blessing offered to us is eternal life (originally promised to Adam on the condition of obedience), conditioned only on faith, which lays hold of the merits of Christ.
This understanding of the Mosaic covenant REALLY helps us understand the OT, and to keep conditionality straight.
To deny that the Mosaic covenant entails some kind of works principle, some kind of merit principle, is to make it very difficult to distinguish us from Israel, a condition of faith from a condition of works. Faith and works must be carefully distinguished, or great confusion becomes a real possibility.
I can testify - though I realize such testimony is of limited value - that reading the OT and the NT in light of these distinctions makes it far clearer. It helps make the OT clearly Christocentric, and helps maintain the careful distinctions Paul draws in his epistles about our justification being by faith and not works.
It’s very, very hard to maintain a justification by faith alone in the NT if a works principle is not recognized in the OT. Not for salvation, but for temporal status in the land. Nothing more. But recognizing this is incredibly helpful, and helps to reconcile many, many confusing things in Scripture.
That’s just what I’ve found. I know that is of limited value, because I can’t exactly walk you through the whole Bible and prove what I’ve just said, but…at least here’s one person saying that I’ve found this way of understanding Scripture to really help to clarify things. It’s completely coherent.
E
March 25, 2008 at 5:45 am
E, you said,
But neither the Bible nor the confessions nor any protestant scholar I have ever read asserts this. Why need it be the case that Abraham merited anything? Again, we receive rewards for what we do, but we do not call it merit. So why call Abraham’s rewards for what he did merit?
March 25, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Just what IS your definition of merit anyway? Is there any such thing as merit in the entire world, and if so, what is it? Please give me an example of what you consider “merit”. What is required in your mind for something to rise to the level of being labeled “meritorious”?
Why do you assume that my views are as unique as a snowflake? Why do you assume that I’m just thinking out loud, making up what I’m saying as I go along, having never thought about it before or read anything on the subject?
Have you ever read Kingdom Prologue by Meredith Kline? God of Promise by Michael Horton?
And I thought I explained what our “receiving rewards for what we do” means, in that it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. You seem to think it means what everyone else calls “merit”, but you refuse to acknowledge that merit is involved. And why? Because you don’t want to concede that your entire system of FV soteriology is merit based.
So I’m asking you to explain to me what merit is, and give me an example of it. How about Adam in the Garden? Anything to do with merit going on there? How about Christ as our priest? Does he merit anything? What, if anything, counts as merit? Otherwise, how can I know what you’re saying your soteriology is NOT?
E
March 26, 2008 at 11:04 am
The sort of merit found in Romans 6:23 is the only sort I see in scripture.
I am not sure where you are getting this. I know your views are fairly common in reformed circles.
I know no one else calls it merit, at least not in the reformed tradition. Neither do I.
My point is that it is inconsistent to not refer to our promised reward for what we do as “merit”, but to refer to the pre-fall covenant wherein Adam was promised reward for what he did, as meritorious.
Look at this thread if you have the patience. I believe I have already proven that this is inconsistent. http://solafidelity.com/2008/03/12/do-christians-merit-eternal-rewards/
March 26, 2008 at 11:38 am
I am sorry. I thought I had already made this clear. Both Adams were called to live by grace through faith. The first Adam failed to do so (at least initially) and the Last Adam succeeded. Jesus lived His whole life perfectly trusting in His Father. The Cross was an act of faith on Jesus’ part. His resurrection and ascension to glory was His *gracious* reward for His faithful life culminating in that faithful act. (Philippians 2:8-11)
The word “given” in Phil 2:9 is charizomai. The root word for charizomai is charis, which is translated “grace” 130 times in the KJV New Testament.
So Jesus’ reward for what he did was bestowed upon Him as a matter of grace. This is because it was His inheritance already. He didn’t have to earn it. He just had to abide in His Father just as He instructs us to abide in Him (John 15:10).
March 26, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Well, Ron, I’ll understand if you want to give your understanding of Phil 2 more weight than the Westminster Confession of Faith, but the WCF does directly contradict you here very clearly.
17.2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
The key phrase here is the “efficacy of the merit…of Jesus Christ.”
The MERIT of Christ is able to bring about the effect of our perseverance. That’s what this says.
And oh, by the way, WE are the inheritance that the Father has bestowed upon Christ. So, according to the WCF, Christ was not rewarded graciously, but based on merit.
It says the same thing in Chapter 8:
5. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.
Yes I know the word “merit” isn’t used here, but the same concept is present. After all, he “purchased” his “inheritance” “by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself.” I don’t know how YOU define merit, but according to how everyone outside the FV defines merit, this fits the bill.
However, if you want to disagree with the confession on this point, by all means do so, but I suggest you inform your session.
To be sure, lay members don’t need to adopt the Confession, but since this is the confession of your church, and since this is a pretty important point, you might want to let them know that you think this is precisely the opposite of what Scripture says.
Now I’m just training to be a minister, but I think that if I were your pastor, I’d definitely want to know that someone in my congregation deliberately and knowingly disagrees with this. I would probably be very upset, and I’d try to convince them to agree with the Confession on this point. If a refusal to accept what the Confession said on this point persisted, I’d probably have to consider discipline at some point. That’s how seriously I take it. I doubt very many share my opinion on that though. Nonetheless, I think your pastor probably thinks it’s important enough that he would want to know about it. So I think in the name of honesty, you should inform your session that you think the Confession which they have vowed to uphold, is completely off the mark in its Christology.
Because this point is actually at the very heart of the Confession’s Christology. To disagree with this one point is to disagree with a whole lot of things.
You my friend don’t believe the Westminster Confession of Faith very much at all.
E
March 26, 2008 at 6:56 pm
By the way, your interpretation of charizomai can’t possibly be right, though it IS a possible definition of the word, but not the only definition.
8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
He obeyed…THEREFORE he was given. That does not involve grace but merit, which by the way, the WCF explicitly says.
He earned his place before God. Earned it.
March 26, 2008 at 7:50 pm
1. I am aware that this differs from the WCF. Semper Reformanda.
2. You still have to handle Abraham’s reward and our rewards. The reformed position is that they are of grace, not merit, but they are received in accordance with doing.
James 4:10 says, “Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you.” So, it can be said of Christians, “You humbled yourself before the Lord, therefore He exalted you.” This parallels Philippians 2:9. But our exaltation is not merit.
The case of Abraham is the clearest. His obedience was definitely causal. God said, “Because you did not withhold your son, I will bless you.” But this is not merit.